Evaluating The Readability Of Websites Providing Information About Monkeypox

Year 2025, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 41 - 47, 15.05.2025

Ece Güner , Hümeyra Yazar , Ezgi Türk Akbulut

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the readability, reliability, and quality of the content on websites providing information about the monkeypox virus.
Methods: The Google search engine (www.google.com.tr) was used with the keyword ‘monkeypox,’ and 44 English-language websites, which did not require membership and were freely accessible, from the first 15 pages of search results were included in the study. The websites were categorized into four groups: news sites, professional health organizations, government websites, and others. The readability of the texts on the websites was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index (SMOG). The content quality of the texts was evaluated using the JAMA and DISCERN tools.
Results: Of the websites examined, 54.5% were news sites, and only 15.9% were affiliated with professional health organizations. It was found that 56.8% of the websites had a FRES readability level of ‘Difficult to read,’ 47.7% had a CLI readability level of ‘Fairly difficult,’ 68.2% had a SMOG readability level of ‘Undergraduate,’ and 57.8% had a GFI readability level of ‘College graduate.’ The average JAMA score of the websites was 2.09, and the average DISCERN score was 40.61.
Conclusion: The readability level of the information provided on websites regarding monkeypox was found to be of moderate difficulty, with inadequate quality and weak reliability. Based on these findings, our study underscores the importance of considering the readability, quality, and reliability of websites that provide information about monkeypox, highlighting that these factors should not be overlooked.

Keywords

Monkeypox , Internet , Readability

Ethical Statement

Since this study uses publicly available information on the internet as material, ethics committee approval is not required.

Maymun Çiçeği Virüsü Hakkında Bilgi Sunan Web Sitelerinin Okunabilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, maymun çiçeği virüsü hakkında bilgi sağlayan web sitelerinin okunabilirliğini, güvenilirliğini ve içerik kalitesini değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Google arama motoru (www.google.com.tr) kullanılarak ‘maymun çiçeği’ anahtar kelimesiyle arama yapılmıştır. İlk 15 sayfa içerisindeki İngilizce dilinde olan, üyelik gerektirmeyen ve serbest erişilebilen web siteleri çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Toplamda 44 web sitesi incelenmiştir. Web siteleri dört gruba ayrılmıştır: haber siteleri, profesyonel sağlık kuruluşları, hükümet web siteleri ve diğerleri. Web sitelerindeki metinlerin okunabilirliği, Flesch Okuma Kolaylığı Puanı (FRES), Gunning Fog İndeksi (GFI), Coleman-Liau İndeksi (CLI) ve Simple Measure of Gobbledygook İndeksi (SMOG) ile değerlendirilmiştir. İçerik kalitesi ise JAMA ve DISCERN araçları kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: İncelenen web sitelerinin %54,5’i haber sitelerinden oluşmaktadır ve yalnızca %15,9’u profesyonel sağlık kuruluşlarıyla ilişkilidir. Web sitelerinin %56,8’inin FRES okunabilirlik seviyesi “Okunması Zor” olarak belirlenmiştir. %47,7’si CLI’ye göre “Oldukça Zor,” %68,2’si SMOG’a göre “Lisans” ve %57,8’i GFI’ye göre “Üniversite Mezunu” seviyesinde bulunmuştur. Web sitelerinin ortalama JAMA skoru 2,09 ve ortalama DISCERN skoru 40,61 olarak hesaplanmıştır.
Sonuç: Maymun çiçeği hakkında bilgi sağlayan web sitelerinin okunabilirlik seviyesi orta derecede zor, içerik kalitesi ise yetersiz ve güvenilirliği zayıf olarak bulunmuştur. Bu bulgulara dayanarak, bu tür web sitelerinin okunabilirlik, kalite ve güvenilirlik unsurlarının göz ardı edilmemesi gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır.

Keywords

Maymun çiçeği , Internet , Okunabilirlik

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmada materyal olarak internette kamuya açık bilgiler kullanıldığı için etik kurul onay belgesi gerekmemektedir

References

• 1. Farahat RA, Sah R, El-Sakka AA, et al. Human monkeypox disease (MPX). Le infezioni in Medicina. 2022;30(3):372.
• 2. Nimbi FM, Giovanardi G, Baiocco R, et al. Monkeypox: New epidemic or fake news? Study of psychological and social factors associated with fake news attitudes of monkeypox in Italy. Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1093763.
• 3. Frost JC, Baldwin AJ. Readability of online monkeypox patient education materials: Improved recognition of health literacy is needed for dissemination of infectious disease information. Infec Dis Health. 2023;28(2):88-94.
• 4. Bunge EM, Hoet B, Chen L, et al. The changing epidemiology of human monkeypox—A potential threat? A systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(2): e0010141.
• 5. Saied AA, Dhawan M, Metwally AA, et al. Disease history, pathogenesis, diagnostics, and therapeutics for human monkeypox disease: a comprehensive review. Vaccines. 2022;10(12):2091.
• 6. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor—Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244-5.
• 7. Fox S. Health topics. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2011.
• 8. Bundorf MK, Wagner TH, Singer SJ, et al. Who searches the internet for health information? Health Serv Res. 2006;41(3):819-36.
• 9. Benigeri M, Pluye P. Shortcomings of health information on the Internet. Health Promot Int. 2003;18(4):381-6.
• 10. Charnock D. The DISCERN handbook. Quality criteria for consumer health information on treatment choices Radcliffe: University of Oxford and The British Library. 1998:7-51.
• 11. Redish JC, Selzer J. The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Tech Commun. 1985:46-52.
• 12. Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, et al. Readability of online health information: a meta-narrative systematic review. Am J Med Qual. 2018;33(5):487-492.
• 13. Cheng C, Dunn M. Health literacy and the Internet: a study on the readability of Australian online health information. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015;39(4):309-314.
• 14. Mcinnes N, Haglund BJ. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011;36(4):173-189.
• 15. Shedlosky-Shoemaker R, Sturm AC, Saleem M, et al. Tools for assessing readability and quality of health-related web sites. J Genet Couns. 2009;18(1):49-59.
• 16. Bayrak E. Global View on Monkeypox Epidemic: A Youtube Study. J Cukurova Anesth and Surg Sci. 2023;6(3):397-401.
• 17. Basch CH, Mohlman J, Hillyer GC, et al. Public health communication in time of crisis: readability of on- line COVID-19 information. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2020;14(5):635-637.
• 18. Mac OA, Muscat DM, Ayre J, et al. The readability of official public health information on COVID-19. Med J Austr. 2021;215(8):373.
• 19. Safdari R, Gholamzadeh M, Saeedi S, et al. An evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 websites in terms of HON principles and using DISCERN tool. Health Infor Lib J. 2023;40(4):371-389.
• 20. Alsoghier A, Riordain RN, Fedele S, et al. Web-based information on oral dysplasia and precancer of the mouth–quality and readability. Oral Oncol. 2018; 82:69-74.
• 21. Eysenbach G, editor Infodemiology: tracking flu-related searches on the web for syndromic surveillance. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006; 2006: 244-248.
• 22. Wittink H, Oosterhaven J. Patient education and health literacy. Musculoskelet Sci Prac. 2018; 38:120-127.
• 23. Davis SN, O’Malley DM, Bator A, et al. Correlates of information seeking behaviors and experiences among adult cancer survivors in the USA. J Cancer Edu. 2021;36(6):1253-1260.
• 24. Bhagavathulaa A, Massey P, Khubchandani J. Monkeypox outbreak and global public interest in the disease. J Hosp Infect. 2022; 129:110.
• 25. Martins-Filho PR, de Souza Araújo AA, Quintans-Júnior LJ. Global online public interest in monkeypox compared with COVID-19: Google trends in 2022. J Travel Med. 2022;29(8): taac104.
• 26. León-Figueroa DA, Barboza JJ, Valladares-Garrido MJ. Sources of information on monkeypox virus infection. A systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):276.
• 27. Doan DA, Nguyen TTX, Le GB, et al. Knowledge and attitudes of medical and pharmacy university students regarding monkeypox: a multicenter, cross-sectional study in Vietnam. BMC Med Edu. 2024;24(1):807.
• 28. Ugwu SE, Abolade SA, Ofeh AS, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and perception of monkeypox among medical/health students across media space in Nigeria. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2022;9(12):4391.
• 29. Jana PK, Patoda S, Roy PK, et al. Information on recent monkeypox outbreak: systematic search and content analysis of Youtube videos. Mayo Clin Proc Digit Health. 2023;1(1):40-51.
• 30. Shi A, El Haddad J, Cai P, et al. Mpox (monkeypox) information on TikTok: analysis of quality and audience engagement. BMJ Glob Health. 2023;8(3): e011138.
• 31. Yapıcı O, Gülseren YD. Quality, reliability and content evaluation of YouTube videos associated monkeypox. J Health Sci Med. 2023;6(2):364-7.
• 32. Ji-Xu A, Htet KZ, Leslie KS. Monkeypox content on TikTok: cross-sectional analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25: e44697.