Aims: We aimed to determine the quality and readability levels of the texts that health readers access from websites related to HPV.
Methods: 64 websites related to "human papilloma virus" were evaluated by using the Google search engine, in terms of readability and website information quality. The websites were divided into 6 groups according to their origins. Ateşman and BezirciYılmaz readability formulas were used for readability, DISCERN measurement tool and JAMA criteria were used for website information quality and reliability. The information quality and reliability of the websites were evaluated by an obstetrician and gynecologist and a gynecological oncology surgeon.
Results: When the websites were evaluated according to the Ateşman readability formula, the readability score was found to be 57.2 and they were found to be moderately readable. According to the Bezirci-Yılmaz readability formula, the average readability score of all websites was found to be 12.8, that is, a readability at the undergraduate level was determined. When evaluated with the DISCERN tool, the average quality level of all websites was determined as "poor". It was seen that the texts prepared by the obstetrics and gynecology associations and the obstetricians and gynecologists were of higher quality than the other groups. It was observed that the quality of the texts was lower according to the gynecological oncology surgeon.
Conclusion: It is noteworthy that the texts prepared by the obstetrics and gynecology associations received higher quality scores than the other groups. Website information resources prepared by obstetrics and gynecology associations should be increased and the readability and quality of other internet health information needs to be improved.
Aims: We aimed to determine the quality and readability levels of the texts that health readers access from websites related to HPV.
Methods: 64 websites related to "human papilloma virus" were evaluated by using the Google search engine, in terms of readability and website information quality. The websites were divided into 6 groups according to their origins. Ateşman and BezirciYılmaz readability formulas were used for readability, DISCERN measurement tool and JAMA criteria were used for website information quality and reliability. The information quality and reliability of the websites were evaluated by an obstetrician and gynecologist and a gynecological oncology surgeon.
Results: When the websites were evaluated according to the Ateşman readability formula, the readability score was found to be 57.2 and they were found to be moderately readable. According to the Bezirci-Yılmaz readability formula, the average readability score of all websites was found to be 12.8, that is, a readability at the undergraduate level was determined. When evaluated with the DISCERN tool, the average quality level of all websites was determined as "poor". It was seen that the texts prepared by the
obstetrics and gynecology associations and the obstetricians and gynecologists were of higher quality than the other groups. It was observed that the quality of the texts was lower according to the gynecological oncology surgeon.
Conclusion: It is noteworthy that the texts prepared by the obstetrics and gynecology associations received higher quality scores than the other groups. Website information resources prepared by obstetrics and gynecology associations should be increased and the readability and quality of other internet health information needs to be improved.
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Obstetrics and Gynaecology |
| Journal Section | Research Article |
| Authors | |
| Submission Date | June 28, 2025 |
| Acceptance Date | July 24, 2025 |
| Publication Date | September 15, 2025 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2025 Volume: 7 Issue: 5 |
TR DİZİN ULAKBİM and International Indexes (1b)
Interuniversity Board (UAK) Equivalency: Article published in Ulakbim TR Index journal [10 POINTS], and Article published in other (excuding 1a, b, c) international indexed journal (1d) [5 POINTS]
Note: Our journal is not WOS indexed and therefore is not classified as Q.
You can download Council of Higher Education (CoHG) [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (YÖK)] Criteria) decisions about predatory/questionable journals and the author's clarification text and journal charge policy from your browser. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/3449/file/4924/show
Journal Indexes and Platforms:
TR Dizin ULAKBİM, Google Scholar, Crossref, Worldcat (OCLC), DRJI, EuroPub, OpenAIRE, Turkiye Citation Index, Turk Medline, ROAD, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, ASOS Index, General Impact Factor, Scilit.The indexes of the journal's are;
The platforms of the journal's are;
|
The indexes/platforms of the journal are;
TR Dizin Ulakbim, Crossref (DOI), Google Scholar, EuroPub, Directory of Research Journal İndexing (DRJI), Worldcat (OCLC), OpenAIRE, ASOS Index, ROAD, Turkiye Citation Index, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, Turk Medline, General Impact Factor, Scilit
Journal articles are evaluated as "Double-Blind Peer Review"
All articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND)