Florür ve internet: halkın kullanımına sunulan çevrimiçi bilgilerin değerlendirmesi

Year 2022, , 39 - 44, 01.05.2022

Pınar Kınay Taran , Meltem Bakkal , Narmin Mammadli

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.947860

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Sağlık ile ilgili alanlarda çevrimiçi olarak bilgi edinme, hastalar ve ebeveynler arasında giderek daha önemli hale gelmektedir. Ebeveynler, çocuklarına florür uygulanmasından endişe duymakta ve internette arama yapma eğilimindedirler. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmanın amacı, florür tedavisi ile ilgili bilgi veren internet sitelerinin güvenilirlik, kalite, erişilebilirlik ve okunabilirlik açısından değerlendirilmesidir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: ‘Çocuklar için florür tedavisi’ ve ‘florür vernik güvenli mi?’ anahtar cümleleri Google ve Yahoo arama motorlarına yazılarak aratılmış ve çıkan ilk 50 internet sitesi kaydedilmiştir. Yinelenen siteler, promosyon ürün siteleri, bloglar/ forumlar, haberler ve makaleler çıkarıldıktan sonra kalan internet siteleri çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. DISCERN ve LIDA araçları, internet sitelerinin güvenilirliğini, kalitesini ve kullanılabilirliğini değerlendirmek için kullanılmıştır. İnternet sitelerinin erişilebilirliği AChecker aracı ile, okunabilirliği ise FRES aracı ile değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Kaydedilen 200 internet sitesinden, 94’ü değerlendirme için uygun bulunmuştur. Ortalama DISCERN skoru, olası toplam 80 puan üzerinden 53±11.2’dir (%66). LIDA aracı ile, güvenilirlik için ortalama skor, olası toplam 27 puan üzerinden 11.8±3.9 (%43) iken, kullanılabilirlik için ortalama skor, olası toplam 54 puan üzerinden 31.2±7’dir (%58). Ortalama toplam AChecker skoru 21.8±37 ve FRES skoru okunması oldukça zor bir seviyeyi işaret eden 57.7±11.6’dır (olası toplam 100 puan üzerinden).

Sonuç: İnternetteki florür hakkındaki çevrimiçi bilgiler, güvenilirlik ve kalite açısından oldukça değişken olmasına rağmen, kolayca erişilebilir olarak saptanmıştır. İnternet sitelerinin okunabilirliği daha anlaşılır olacak şekilde geliştirilmelidir.

Keywords

çocuk diş hekimliği, florürler, topikal, internet

Fluoride and the internet: an assessment of online information available to the public

Abstract

Objective: Obtaining information online in health-related issues is becoming increasingly important among patients and parents. Parents are concerned about their children's fluoride use and tend to search on the internet. In this regard, the aim of this study is to assess the reliability, quality, accessibility, and readability of websites giving information on fluoride treatment.

Materials and Method: Two search terms, “fluoride treatment for kids” and “is fluoride varnish safe?”, were entered into the search engines of both Google and Yahoo, and the first 50 websites were saved. After excluding duplicate sites, promotional product sites, blogs/forums, news and articles, the remaining websites were evaluated. The DISCERN and LIDA tools were used to assess reliability, quality, and usability of websites. The accessibility of websites was assessed with AChecker tool while the readability was assessed with FRES instrument.

Results: Of the 200 websites saved, 94 were suitable for inclusion. The mean total DISCERN score was 53±11.2 of a possible total of 80 (66%). With the LIDA instrument, the average score for reliability was 11.8±3.9 of a possible total of 27 (43%) while the average score for usability was 31.2±7 of a possible total of 54 (58%). The mean total AChecker score was 21.8±37 and the mean FRES score was 57.7± 11.6 (of a possible total of 100) indicating a level of fairly difficult to read.

Conclusion: Information about fluoride on the internet is easily accessible although the reliability and quality were highly variable. The readability of websites should be improved to be more understandable.

Keywords

Fluorides, internet, pediatric dentistry, topical

References

• Livas C, Delli K, Ren Y. Quality evaluation of the available Internet information regarding pain during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2013;83:500-6.
• 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.
• Harris Interactive. The growing influence and use of health care information obtained online [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 6]. Available from: https://theharrispoll.com/the-latest-harris-poll-measuring-how-many-people-use-the-internet-to-look-for-information-about-health-topics-finds-that-the-numbers-continue-to-increase-the-harris-poll-first-used-the-word-cyberch/
• Fox S. Online health search 2006: Most Internet users start at a search engine when looking for oral health online. Pew Internet & American Life Project [Internet ]. [cited 2020 Mar 6]. Available from: https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/media/Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Online_Health_2006.pdf
• Shuyler KS, Knight KM. What are patients seeking when they turn to the Internet? Qualitative content analysis of questions asked by visitors to an orthopaedics website. J Med Internet Res 2003;5:e24.
• 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;36:1755-62.
• 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;277:1244-5.
• Aldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT. Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid? Eur J Orthod 2012;34:466-9.
• Patel U, Cobourne MT. Orthodontic extractions and the Internet: quality of online information available to the public. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:103-9.
• McMorrow SM, Millett DT. Adult orthodontics: a quality assessment of Internet information. J Orthod 2016;43:186-92.
• Doğramacı EJ, Rossi-Fedele G. The quality of information on the Internet on orthodontic retainer wear: a cross-sectional study. J Orthod 2016;43:47-58.
• Adams SH, Rowe CR, Gansky SA, Cheng NF, Barker JC, Hyde S. Caregiver acceptability and preferences for preventive dental treatments for young African-American children. J Public Health Dent 2012;72:252-60.
• US Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. MMWR Recomm Rep 2001;50:1-42.
• American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Policy on use of fluoride. Pediatr Dent 2018;40:49-50.
• Chi DL. Caregivers who refuse preventive care for their children: The relationship between immunization and topical fluoride refusal. Am J Public Health 2014;104:1327-33.
• 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;53:105-11.
• Minervation [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 6]. Available from: www.minervation.com
• Ismail A, Kuppusamy KS, Nengroo AS. Multi-tool accessibility assessment of government department websites: a case-study with JKGAD. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2018;13:504-16.
• Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J App Psychol 1948;32:221-33.
• Parekh J, Gill DS. The quality of orthodontic practice websites. Br Dent J 2014;216:E21.
• Verhoef WA, Livas C, Delli K, Ren Y. Assessing the standards of online oral hygiene instructions of patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. J Am Dent Assoc 2015;146:310-7.
• Valizadeh-Haghi S, Rahmatizadeh S. Evaluation of the quality and accessibility of available websites on kidney transplantation. Urol J 2018;15:261-5.
• Arief M, Kinnunen UM, Saranto K. Accessibility and readability of dementia-related information on websites. Stud Health Technol Inform 2018;251:229-32.
• Aghasiyev R, Yılmaz BŞ. The accuracy of information about orthodontics available on the internet. Turk J Orthod 2018;31:127-32.
• Humphris GM, Zhou Y. Prediction of nursery school-aged children who refuse fluoride varnish administration in a community setting: a Childsmile investigation. Int J Paediatr Dent 2014;24:245-51.