Evaluation of Patient Information Texts About Bruxism on the Internet in Terms of Readability and Content

Abstract

Aim: Bruxism is a common health problem in our society. The treatment method to be preferred should be determined by the decision of the patient and the physician together. Individuals' knowledge of the course of the disease, symptoms, and treatment options will contribute to the treatment process. There are many websites on the Internet that can guide patients about health and illness. The aim of this study is to evaluate the patient information texts about bruxism on web sites in terms of content and readability. Material and Method: Websites reached in a search using the keyword "bruxism" on Google were evaluated in terms of readability and content. The readability assessment was classified according to the level of education. Text content accuracy was also evaluated according to information level separately. Results: Forty-four of the 100 websites examined were included in the study. The average grade level is 11.41±0.82. The readability level of 79% (n=35) of the 44 texts examined is at a difficult level. It is seen that the definition and etiology of the disease are mentioned in 68% (n=30) of the texts examined in the study. Conclusion: Although the content of the English texts prepared to inform patients about bruxism on the Internet is sufficient, it has been found that the readability level is low.

Keywords

• Bruxism
• Access to information
• Search engine

References

1. Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, et al. Patients' use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:180-5.
2. Ní Ríordáin R, McCreary C. Dental patients' use of the Internet. Br Dent J. 2009;207:583-6; 575.
3. Chen YY, Li CM, Liang JC, Tsai CC. Health information obtained from the internet and changes in medical decision making: questionnaire development and cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20:e47.
4. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2691-700.
5. Manfredini D, Winocur E, Guarda-Nardini L, et al. Epidemiology of bruxism in adults: a systematic review of the literature. J Orofac Pain. 2013;27:99-110.
6. Manfredini D, Ahlberg J, Winocur E, Lobbezoo F. Management of sleep bruxism in adults: a qualitative systematic literature review. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42:862-74.
7. Manfredini D, Lobbezoo F. Relationship between bruxism and temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review of literature from 1998 to 2008. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109:e26-50.
8. Yap AU, Chua AP. Sleep bruxism: current knowledge and contemporary management. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19:383-9.

9. Boyers LN, Quest T, Karimkhani C, et al. Dermatology on YouTube. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20:13030/qt5037g18h.
10. Vance K, Howe W, Dellavalle RP. Social internet sites as a source of public health information. Dermatol Clin. 2009;27:133-6, vi.
11. Weiss BD. Health literacy and patient safety: Help patients understand. Manual for Clinicians AMA Foundation. 2007;8-41.
12. Dueppen AJ, Bellon-Harn ML, Radhakrishnan N, Manchaiah V. Quality and readability of English-Language internet information for voice disorders. J Voice. 2019;33:290-6.
13. Patel AJ, Kloosterboer A, Yannuzzi NA, et al. Evaluation of the content quality and readability of patient accessible online resources regarding cataracts. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021;36:384-91.
14. Bukhari A, Alshihri S, Abualenain M, et al. "Headache" online information: an evaluation of readability quality credibility and content. Perm J. 2021;25:20.185.
15. Crawford-Manning F, Greenall C, Hawarden A, et al. Evaluation of quality and readability of online patient information on osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment and recommendations for improvement. Osteoporos Int. 2021;32:767-78.
16. Shedlosky-Shoemaker R, Sturm AC, Saleem M, Kelly KM. Tools for assessing readability and quality of health-related Web sites. J Genet Couns. 2009;18:49-59.
17. McInnes N, Haglund BJ. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011;36:173-89.
18. Melo G, Duarte J, Pauletto P, et al. Bruxism: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. J Oral Rehabil. 2019;46:666-90.
19. Edmunds MR, Barry RJ, Denniston AK. Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131:1610-6.
20. Vargas CR, Chuang DJ, Ganor O, Lee BT. Readability of online patient resources for the operative treatment of breast cancer. Surgery. 2014;156:311-8.
21. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: office of disease prevention and health promotion--healthy people 2010. NASNewsletter. 2000;15:3.
22. Bulanda S, Ilczuk-Rypuła D, Nitecka-Buchta A, et al. Sleep bruxism in children: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment-a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:9544.
23. Goldstein G, DeSantis L, Goodacre C. Bruxism: best evidence consensus statement. J Prosthodont. 2021;30:91-101.
24. Flesch R. The art of readable writing. 1st ed. New York: Harper. 1949;128-39.
25. Jayaratne YS, Anderson NK, Zwahlen RA. Readability of websites containing information on dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:1319-24.
26. DuBay WH. The principles of readability. Online Submission. 2004;43-55.