How Qualified is Online Information Regarding Space Maintainers? A Content-quality and Readability Analysis

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability, quality, and readability of information regarding space maintainers on English websites using different scales. Materials and Methods: The selected search terms 'space maintainer', 'band and loop', 'distal shoe space maintainer', 'nance appliance', and 'lingual arch' were searched by four search engines (Yahoo, Bing, Yandex, and Google), and 992 websites were recorded. The websites were evaluated using the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) instruments. Results: Among the 90 websites included in the study, Professional Health Organization (PHO) websites had significantly higher DISCERN scores in all sections and total (p<0.05) compared to other websites. There were no significant differences between websites regarding FKGL and FRES scores (p>0.05). Only 3 (3.3%) provided all JAMA criteria and PHO websites scored significantly higher than the others in almost all categories (p<0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, web-based information regarding pediatric space maintainers was inadequate and scientifically imperfect. It is helpful to publish quality websites that contain reliable, high-quality information, and easy to understand by the patient Keywords: Internet, space maintainers, information, quality

Keywords

• Internet
• space maintainers
• information
• quality

References

1. Anderson JG, Rainey MR, Eysenbach G. The impact of Cyber- Healthcare on the physician-patient relationship. J Med Syst. 2003;27(1):67–84. doi:10.1023/a:1021061229743.
2. Zhang H, Zhang R, Lu X, Zhu X. Impact of Personal Trust Tendency on Patient Compliance Based on Internet Health Information Seeking. Telemed J E Health. 2020;26(3):294–303. doi:10.1089/tmj.2018.0296.
3. Couper MP, Singer E, Levin CA, Fowler J F J, Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Use of the Internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: results from the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5 Suppl):106s–114s. doi:10.1177/0272989x10377661.
4. Andreassen HK, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Chronaki CE, Dumitru RC, Pudule I, Santana S, et al. European citizens’ use of E-health services: a study of seven countries. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-53.
5. Pang PC, Chang S, Verspoor K, Pearce J. Designing Health Websites Based on Users’ Web-Based Information-Seeking Behaviors: A Mixed-Method Observational Study. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6):e145. doi:10.2196/jmir.5661.
6. Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW. Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):180–5. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10603.x.
7. de Boer MJ, Versteegen GJ, van Wijhe M. Patients’ use of the Internet for pain-related medical information. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68(1):86–97. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.012.
8. Sechrest RC. The internet and the physician-patient relationship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(10):2566–71. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1440-3.

9. Powell JA, Darvell M, Gray JA. The doctor, the patient and the world-wide web: how the internet is changing healthcare. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(2):74–6. doi:10.1177/014107680309600206.
10. Chestnutt IG. Internet-derived patient information on common oral pathologies: is it readable? Prim Dent Care. 2004;11(2):51–4. doi:10.1308/135576104773711291.
11. Stinson JN, Tucker L, Huber A, Harris H, Lin C, Cohen L, et al. Surfing for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: perspectives on quality and content of information on the Internet. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(8):1755–62. doi:10.3899/jrheum.081010.
12. Lee H, Choi A, Jang Y, Lee JI. YouTube as a learning tool for four shoulder tests. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2018;20:e70. doi:10.1017/s1463423618000804.
13. Mager A. Mediated health: sociotechnical practices of providing and using online health information. New Media & Society. 2009;11(7):1123–1142. doi:10.1177/1461444809341700.
14. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105–11. doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105.
15. Corcelles R, Daigle CR, Talamas HR, Brethauer SA, Schauer PR. Assessment of the quality of Internet information on sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(3):539–44. doi:10.1016/j.soard.2014.08.014.
16. Alpaydın MT, Buyuk SK, Canigur Bavbek N. Information on the Internet about clear aligner treatment-an assessment of content, quality, and readability. J Orofac Orthop. 2022;83(Suppl 1):1–12. doi:10.1007/s00056-021-00331-0.
17. 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.
18. Arsenault M, Blouin MJ, Guitton MJ. Information quality and dynamics of patients’ interactions on tonsillectomy web resources. Internet Interv. 2016;4:99–104. doi:10.1016/j.invent.2016.05.002.
19. Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9(5):503–16. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009.
20. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):221–33. doi:10.1037/h0057532.
21. D’Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J. The read ability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(7):807–12. doi:10.1001/archpedi.155.7.807.
22. Obilor EI, Amadi E. Test for Significance of Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient. IJIMSEP. 2018.
23. Olkun HK, Demirkaya AA, Aras B. The quality of Internet information on lingual orthodontics in the English language, with DISCERN and JAMA. J Orthod. 2019;46(1):20–26. doi:10.1177/1465312518824100.
24. Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, Gonzales SF, Baker SR. Are we effectively informing patients? A quantitative analysis of online patient education resources from the American Society of Neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(7):1270–5. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3854.
25. Demirsoy K, Imamoglu T, Buyuk S. A quality assessment of Internet information regarding accelerated orthodontics. Australasian Orthodontic Journal. 2021;37:265–272. doi:10.21307/aoj-2021.029.
26. Meade MJ, Dreyer CW. Web-based information on orthodontic clear aligners: a qualitative and readability assessment. Aust Dent J. 2020;65(3):225–232. doi:10.1111/adj.12776.
27. Haque A, Cox M, Sandler RD, Hughes M. A systematic review of internet-based information on dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Int J Rheum Dis. 2020;23(12):1613–1618. doi:10.1111/1756-185x.13929.
28. McMorrow SM, Millett DT. Adult orthodontics: a quality assessment of Internet information. J Orthod. 2016;43(3):186–92. doi:10.1080/14653125.2016.1194599.
29. Jayaratne YS, Anderson NK, Zwahlen RA. Readability of websites containing information on dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(12):1319–24. doi:10.1111/clr.12285.