Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Evaluating the information quality and readability on Turkish Websites about human papilloma virus

Year 2025, Volume: 7 Issue: 5, 563 - 568, 15.09.2025
https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1729371

Abstract

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.

References

  • Anderson JG, Rainey MR, Eysenbach G. The impact of CyberHealthcare on the physician-patient relationship. J Med Syst. 2003;27(1):67-84. doi: 10.1023/a:1021061229743
  • Richards B, Colman AW, Hollingsworth RA. The current and future role of the Internet in patient education. Int J Med Inform. 1998;50(1-3): 279-285. doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(98)00083-5
  • Bayrak A, Koçyiğit M, Aksu HS, Koçyiğit A. Z kuşağının sosyal medya bağımlılığı ve sosyotelist davranış ilişkisi: Konya örneği. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2024;46:115-132. doi:10.31123/akil.1538072
  • Mansur F, Ciğerci K. Siberkondri ve E-sağlık okuryazarlığı arasındaki ilişki. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2022;11(1):11-21. doi:10.37989/gumussagbil.961457
  • Fox S. The engaged E-patient population. Pew Internet Am Life Proj. 2008;1-4.
  • Fahy E, Hardikar R, Fox A, Mackay S. Quality of patient health information on the internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape. Australas Med J. 2014;7(1):24-28. doi:10.4066/AMJ.2014.1900
  • Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, Keller J. An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(9):987-1001. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90166-x
  • Ahmad F, Hudak PL, Bercovitz K, Hollenberg E, Levinson W. Are physicians ready for patients with internet-based health information? J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(3):e22. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.3.e22
  • Manini I, Montomoli E. Epidemiology and prevention of human papillomavirus. Ann Ig. 2018;30(4 Supple 1):28-32. doi:10.7416/ai.2018.2231
  • Szymonowicz KA, Chen J. Biological and clinical aspects of HPV-related cancers. Cancer Biol Med. 2020;17(4):864-878. doi:10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0370
  • Galeshi M, Shirafkan H, Yazdani S. et al. Reproducvtive health needs of women with human papillomavirus (HPV): a systematic review. Research Square. 2022. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1410186/v1
  • Şahin F, Aydın E, Büyükkaya Öcal EU, Özdemir S, Kasapoğlu AM, Akbayır Ö. Evaluation of colposcopy and LEEP results performed in gynecology and gynecological oncology surgery services. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2024;45(1):116. doi:10.22514/ejgo.2023.071
  • Atesman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Lang J. 1997; 58(2):171-174.
  • Bezirci Y, Yılmaz A. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEÜ FMD. 2010;12(3):49-62.
  • 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(15): 1244-1245. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
  • Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, et al. Brief DISCERN, six questions for the evaluation of evidence-based content of health-related websites. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(1):33-37. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.02.016
  • Som R, Gunawardana NP. Internet chemotherapy information is of good quality: assessment with the DISCERN tool. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(2): 403. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.223
  • Köhler C, Darmoni SJ, Mayer MA, Roth-Berghofer T, Fiene M, Eysenbach G. MedCIRCLE--the collaboration for internet rating, certification, labelling, and evaluation of health information. Int J Heal Care Eng. 2002;10(6):515. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-939-4-667
  • 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(2): e47. doi:10.2196/jmir.9370
  • Wang Y, McKee M, Torbica A, Stuckler D. systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc Sci Med. 2019;240(September):112552. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
  • Levine DM, Mehrotra A. Assessment of diagnosis and triage in validated case vignettes among nonphysicians before and after internet search. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):1-12. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3287
  • Maheshwari D, Kunycky C, Jia X, Tangada A, Leung K, Solomon ER. Patient-focused websites related to postpartum pelvic floor health: a DISCERN quality analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022;28(4): 240-243. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001101
  • Jain M, Chkipov P, Stacey D, Posner G, Bacal V, Chen I. Online patient information for hysterectomies: an environmental scan of readability and quality. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2021;43(5):667. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.061
  • Sobota A, Ozakinci G. The quality and readability of online consumer information about gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(3): 537-541. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000362
  • Matthews T, Sewell J. Executive summary: excerpt from CSG’s state official’s guide to health literacy. The Council of State Governments. United States of America. 2002.
  • Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013; 9(5):503-516. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009
  • Ay IE, Doğan M. An evaluation of the comprehensibility levels of ophthalmology surgical consent forms. Cureus. 2021;13(7):10-15. doi:10. 7759/cureus.16639
  • Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1310-1315.
  • Fahimuddin FZ, Sidhu S, Agrawal A. Reading level of online patient education materials from major obstetrics and gynecology societies. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(5):987-993. doi:10.1097/AOG. 0000000000003214
  • Uzun SB, Sakin Ö, Hüseyin Ç, Şimsek EE. The effects of HPV test on anxiety, emotion and depression in women. J Acad Res Med. 2020;10(2): 149-154. doi:10.4274/jarem.galenos.2020.3106

Evaluating the information quality and readability on Turkish Websites about human papilloma virus

Year 2025, Volume: 7 Issue: 5, 563 - 568, 15.09.2025
https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1729371

Abstract

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.

References

  • Anderson JG, Rainey MR, Eysenbach G. The impact of CyberHealthcare on the physician-patient relationship. J Med Syst. 2003;27(1):67-84. doi: 10.1023/a:1021061229743
  • Richards B, Colman AW, Hollingsworth RA. The current and future role of the Internet in patient education. Int J Med Inform. 1998;50(1-3): 279-285. doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(98)00083-5
  • Bayrak A, Koçyiğit M, Aksu HS, Koçyiğit A. Z kuşağının sosyal medya bağımlılığı ve sosyotelist davranış ilişkisi: Konya örneği. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2024;46:115-132. doi:10.31123/akil.1538072
  • Mansur F, Ciğerci K. Siberkondri ve E-sağlık okuryazarlığı arasındaki ilişki. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2022;11(1):11-21. doi:10.37989/gumussagbil.961457
  • Fox S. The engaged E-patient population. Pew Internet Am Life Proj. 2008;1-4.
  • Fahy E, Hardikar R, Fox A, Mackay S. Quality of patient health information on the internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape. Australas Med J. 2014;7(1):24-28. doi:10.4066/AMJ.2014.1900
  • Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, Keller J. An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(9):987-1001. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90166-x
  • Ahmad F, Hudak PL, Bercovitz K, Hollenberg E, Levinson W. Are physicians ready for patients with internet-based health information? J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(3):e22. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.3.e22
  • Manini I, Montomoli E. Epidemiology and prevention of human papillomavirus. Ann Ig. 2018;30(4 Supple 1):28-32. doi:10.7416/ai.2018.2231
  • Szymonowicz KA, Chen J. Biological and clinical aspects of HPV-related cancers. Cancer Biol Med. 2020;17(4):864-878. doi:10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0370
  • Galeshi M, Shirafkan H, Yazdani S. et al. Reproducvtive health needs of women with human papillomavirus (HPV): a systematic review. Research Square. 2022. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1410186/v1
  • Şahin F, Aydın E, Büyükkaya Öcal EU, Özdemir S, Kasapoğlu AM, Akbayır Ö. Evaluation of colposcopy and LEEP results performed in gynecology and gynecological oncology surgery services. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2024;45(1):116. doi:10.22514/ejgo.2023.071
  • Atesman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Lang J. 1997; 58(2):171-174.
  • Bezirci Y, Yılmaz A. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEÜ FMD. 2010;12(3):49-62.
  • 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(15): 1244-1245. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
  • Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, et al. Brief DISCERN, six questions for the evaluation of evidence-based content of health-related websites. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(1):33-37. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.02.016
  • Som R, Gunawardana NP. Internet chemotherapy information is of good quality: assessment with the DISCERN tool. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(2): 403. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.223
  • Köhler C, Darmoni SJ, Mayer MA, Roth-Berghofer T, Fiene M, Eysenbach G. MedCIRCLE--the collaboration for internet rating, certification, labelling, and evaluation of health information. Int J Heal Care Eng. 2002;10(6):515. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-939-4-667
  • 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(2): e47. doi:10.2196/jmir.9370
  • Wang Y, McKee M, Torbica A, Stuckler D. systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc Sci Med. 2019;240(September):112552. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
  • Levine DM, Mehrotra A. Assessment of diagnosis and triage in validated case vignettes among nonphysicians before and after internet search. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):1-12. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3287
  • Maheshwari D, Kunycky C, Jia X, Tangada A, Leung K, Solomon ER. Patient-focused websites related to postpartum pelvic floor health: a DISCERN quality analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022;28(4): 240-243. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001101
  • Jain M, Chkipov P, Stacey D, Posner G, Bacal V, Chen I. Online patient information for hysterectomies: an environmental scan of readability and quality. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2021;43(5):667. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.061
  • Sobota A, Ozakinci G. The quality and readability of online consumer information about gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(3): 537-541. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000362
  • Matthews T, Sewell J. Executive summary: excerpt from CSG’s state official’s guide to health literacy. The Council of State Governments. United States of America. 2002.
  • Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013; 9(5):503-516. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009
  • Ay IE, Doğan M. An evaluation of the comprehensibility levels of ophthalmology surgical consent forms. Cureus. 2021;13(7):10-15. doi:10. 7759/cureus.16639
  • Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1310-1315.
  • Fahimuddin FZ, Sidhu S, Agrawal A. Reading level of online patient education materials from major obstetrics and gynecology societies. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(5):987-993. doi:10.1097/AOG. 0000000000003214
  • Uzun SB, Sakin Ö, Hüseyin Ç, Şimsek EE. The effects of HPV test on anxiety, emotion and depression in women. J Acad Res Med. 2020;10(2): 149-154. doi:10.4274/jarem.galenos.2020.3106
There are 30 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Cem Dağdelen 0000-0003-0950-0442

İlyas Turan 0000-0003-3611-9428

Özgür Ozan Ceylan 0000-0001-5054-8486

Submission Date June 28, 2025
Acceptance Date July 24, 2025
Publication Date September 15, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025 Volume: 7 Issue: 5

Cite

AMA Dağdelen C, Turan İ, Ceylan ÖO. Evaluating the information quality and readability on Turkish Websites about human papilloma virus. Anatolian Curr Med J / ACMJ / acmj. September 2025;7(5):563-568. doi:10.38053/acmj.1729371

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;

18596


asos-index.png

f9ab67f.png

WorldCat_Logo_H_Color.png

      logo-large-explore.png

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgDnBwx0yUPRKuetgIurtELxYERFv20CPAUcPe4jYrrJiwXzac8rGXlzd57gl8iikb1Tk&usqp=CAU

index_copernicus.jpg


84039476_619085835534619_7808805634291269632_n.jpg





The platforms of the journal's are;

COPE.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbq2FM8NTdXECzlOUCeKQ1dvrISFL-LhxhC7zy1ZQeJk-GGKSx2XkWQvrsHxcfhtfHWxM&usqp=CAUicmje_1_orig.png


ncbi.png

ORCID_logo.pngimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlwX77nfpy3Bu9mpMBZa0miWT2sRt2zjAPJKg2V69ODTrjZM1nT1BbhWzTVPsTNKJMZzQ&usqp=CAU


images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaWSousoprPWGwE-qxwxGH2y0ByZ_zdLMN-Oq93MsZpBVFOTfxi9uXV7tdr39qvyE-U0I&usqp=CAU






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)