Digital health literacy: Hepatitis B information quality on internet platforms

Year 2025, Volume: 23 Issue: 2, 200 - 206, 09.08.2025

Seda Zor Çakilli , Feyza Özkan , Mustafa Çakıllı

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality, accuracy, and reliability of internet-based information on Hepatitis B. With
increasing public reliance on online sources for health information, ensuring the accuracy and trustworthiness of this content is crucial.
Using standardized tools such as the DISCERN instrument and JAMA Benchmark Criteria, the study sought to assess online content
and identify reliable sources related to Hepatitis B, ultimately contributing to the promotion of digital health literacy.
Materials and Methods: The keywords “Hepatitis B” and “Hepatitis B disease” were searched on Google and Yandex. The first
10 result pages from each search engine were screened, yielding 190 websites. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant pages, 92
websites were evaluated. Each was assessed using the DISCERN tool and JAMA Benchmark Criteria. Readability scores were also
calculated using a standard readability formula.
Results: Of the 92 evaluated websites, 48 (52.17%) were from private hospitals, 13 (14.13%) from private individuals, and 9 (9.78%)
from private laboratories. DISCERN evaluations showed that none of the websites were of high or medium quality. According to
JAMA, 7 sites scored high (3 points), and 34 scored medium (2 points). The average readability score was 63.8±8.5, indicating
moderately easy-to-read content. However, most sites lacked comprehensive and referenced information.
Conclusion: The findings reveal that the majority of online content about Hepatitis B is of low quality and reliability. This underscores
the need for improved digital content standards and highlights the importance of directing users toward verified, high-quality health
information sources.

Keywords

DISCERN score , Hepatitis B , Internet-based information , JAMA Benchmark criteria , Readability

Ethical Statement

This study did not involve any human or animal subjects, so ethical approval was not required.

References

• 1. Çömlekçi M. F., Bozkanat E. İnfodemide dijital ortamda sağlık bilgisi edinme ve teyit davranışları. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi. 2021;41:103-125.
• 2. Tozun N, Ozdogan O, Cakaloglu Y. et al. Seroprevalence of hepatitis B and C virus infections and risk factors in Turkey: a fieldwork TURHEP study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:1020-1026.
• 3. Özen N, Topbaş M. İnternet Ortamında ve Sosyal Medyada Doğru ve Güvenilir Sağlık Bilgisi Edinebilme. Farabi Medical Journal. 2023;2:27-32.
• 4. Binks P, Venkatesan S, Everitt A, et al. An evaluation and refinement of the ‘Hep B Story’ app, tailored to meet the community’s cultural needs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):710.
• 5. Verweel L, Newman A, Michaelchuk W, Packham T, Goldstein R , Brooks D , et al. The effect of digital interventions on related health literacy and skills for individuals living with chronic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Inform 2023:177:105114.
• 6. McInnes N, Haglund BJ. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care 2011;36(4):173-189.
• 7. Altun A, Askin A, Sengul I, Aghazada N, Aydin Y. Evaluation of YouTube videos as sources of information about complex regional pain syndrome. Korean J Pain. 2022;35(3):319-326.
• 8. Murray T, Hagey J, Willms D, Shillington R, Desjardins R. Health literacy in Canada: A healthy understanding. 2008.
• 9. Irwin SC, Lennon DT, Stanley CP, Gerard A Sheridan, James C Walsh. Ankle conFUSION: The quality and readability of information on the internet relating to ankle arthrodesis. Surgeon. 2021;19:e507-e511.
• 10. Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, Alison Kitay, Timothy R Roberts, Aaron Daluiski. The effect of search term on the quality and accuracy of online information regarding distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37:1881-1887.
• 11. Perra A, Preti A, De Lorenzo V, Nardi AE, Carta MG. Quality of information of websites dedicated to obesity: A systematic search to promote high level of information for Internet users and professionals. Eat Weight. Disord. 2022;27(1):1-9.
• 12. White RW, Horvitz E. Experiences with web search on medical concerns and self-diagnosis. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009:696-700. 13. Barke A, Bleichhardt G, Rief W, Doering BK.The cyberchondria severity scale (CSS): German validation and development of a short form. Int J Behav Med. 2016;23:595- 605.
• 14. Trépo, Christian, Henry LY Chan, Anna Lok. “Hepatitis B virus infection”. The Lancet. 2014;384.9959;2053-2063.
• 15. CharnockD, 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 Feb 01;53(2):105–11.
• 16. McCool ME, Wahl J, Schlecht I, Apfelbacher C. Evaluating written patient information for eczema in German: comparing the reliability of two instruments. DISCERN and EQIP. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0139895.
• 17. Robert Sabaté L, Diego L. Are we offering patients the right medicines information? A retrospective evaluation of readability and quality in online patient drug information. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2020;28(3):144-148.
• 18. 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- 516.
• 19. Vishnevetsky J, Walters CB, Tan KS. Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(3):490-496.
• 20. Bharmal RV, Johal A. Development and assessment of reliable patient-based hypodontia website. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1065-1070.
• 21. Leira Y, Castelo-Baz P, Pérez-Sayáns M, Blanco J, Lorenzo- Pouso AI. Available patient-centered Internet information on peri-implantitis. Can our patients understand it? Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(4):1569-1574.
• 22. Kuter B, Atesci AA, Eden E. Quality and reliability of web-based information regarding restorative treatment in pediatric patients. Eur Oral Res. 2021;55(3):1049.
• 23. Passos KK, Leonel AC, Bonan PR. et al. Quality of information about oral cancer in Brazilian Portuguese available on Google, Youtube, and Instagram. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020;25(3):e346-e352.
• 24. Raja H, Fitzpatrick N. Assessing the readability and quality of online information on Bell's palsy.J Laryngol Otol. 2023;137(10):1130-1134.
• 25. De La Chapa JS, Bellinger JR, Timm AR, Daniero JJ. Quality, readability, and understandability of online posterior glottic stenosis information. J Voice (Forthcoming). 2025;39(3):854.e7-854.e12.
• 26. Crabtree L, Lee E. Assessment of the readability and quality of online patient education materials for the medical treatment of open-angle glaucoma. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2022;7(1):e000966.
• 27. Kim JH, Grose E, Philteos J. Et al. Readability of the American, Canadian, and British otolaryngology-head and neck surgery societies' patient materials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;166(5):862-868.
• 28. Lee DM, Grose E, Cross K. Internet-based patient education materials regarding diabetic foot ulcers: readability and quality assessment. JMIR Diabetes. 2022;7(1):e27221.
• 29. Hong SW, Kang JH, Park JH, Park HJ, Kim E. Quality and readability of online information on hand osteoarthritis. Health Informatics J. 2023;29(1):14604582231169297.