Evaluation of Readability of Turkish Websites on Obesity and Bariatric Surgery

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 41 - 45, 30.03.2022

Mehmet Eryılmaz , İbrahim Solak , Enes Ay Betül Kozanhan

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.763167

Cited By: 2

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the readability levels and contents of Turkish websites on obesity and bariatric surgery.
Methods: A search was performed in June 2019 with the words “obesity” and “bariatric surgery” in Google’s search engine. We evaluated the websites on the first ten pages of Google’s search engine results. Commercial websites, advertisement websites, chat websites, forum websites,
magazine websites, websites containing only images or videos, and websites with less than ten sentences were excluded. Ateşman and Bezirci Yılmaz’s readability formulas were used to analyze the readability level. Websites were evaluated in terms of content (definition, risk factors, complications, and treatment of obesity) and were divided into three groups (Group 1: hospitals and specialist physicians, Group 2: national news websites, and Group 3: other websites).
Results: A total of 79 websites were evaluated. There were 43 (54.4%) websites in Group 1, 25 (31.6%) websites in Group 2, and 11 (13.9%) websites in Group 3. The readability level of all sites was ‘difficult,’ according to the Atesman readability formula, and at ‘undergraduate level,’ according to the Bezirci-Yılmaz readability formula. When the contents of these websites were examined, 51.9% contained a definition of obesity, 7.6% contained information on waist circumference, 12.7% contained obesity risk factors, and 43.0% contained obesity-related diseases.
Conclusion: This study revealed that the readability level of Turkish websites on obesity and bariatric surgery was above the average literacy level of the Turkish people. Furthermore, it determined that these websites did not provide adequate information about bariatric surgery risks, adverse effects, and contraindications.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Obesity, Bariatric surgery, Readability, Internet

Proje Numarası

yok

Kaynakça

• 1. Finnie RK, Felder TM, Linder SK, Mullen PD. Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and web-based materials. J Cancer Educ 2010;25:497-505.
• 2. Satman I, Yilmaz T, Sengül A, Salman S, Salman F, Uygur S, et al. Population-based study of diabetes and risk characteristics in Turkey: results of the turkish diabetes epidemiology study (TURDEP). Diabetes care 2002;25:1551-6.
• 3. Satman I, Omer B, Tutuncu Y, Kalaca S, Gedik S, Dinccag N, et al. Twelve-year trends in the prevalence and risk factors of diabetes and prediabetes in Turkish adults. European journal of epidemiology. 2013;28(2):169-80.
• 4. Türkiye beslenme ve sağlık araştırması 2010: Beslenme durumu ve alışkanlıklarının değerlendirilmesi sonuç raporu. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Beslenme ve Diyetetik Bölümü Sağlık Araştırmaları Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara. 2014.
• 5. Cheng C, Dunn M. Health literacy and the Internet: a study on the readability of Australian online health information. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 2015;39(4):309-14.
• 6. Wolfe BM, Kvach E, Eckel RH. Treatment of Obesity: Weight Loss and Bariatric Surgery. Circulation research. 2016;118(11):1844-55.
• 7. Arterburn DE, Courcoulas AP. Bariatric surgery for obesity and metabolic conditions in adults. Bmj. 2014;349:g3961.
• 8. Mihmanli M, Işil RG, İdiz UO. Bariyatrik Cerrahi Sonuçlarına Genel Bakış. Turkiye Klinikleri General Surgery-Special Topics. 2015;8(3):6-11.
• 9. Solak M. Kolorektal Kanser Hakkında Bilgi İçeren İnternet Sitelerinin Okunabilirliği. Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi. 2019;16(3):509-13.
• 10. Eker L, Tüzün EH, Aytar A, Daşkapan A. Fizik tedavi ve rehabilitasyon kliniklerinde kullanılan sağlık eğitim materyallerinin okunabilirlik düzeyi.
• 11. Boztaş N, Özbilgin Ş, Öçmen E, Altuntaş G, Özkardeşler S, Hancı V, et al. Evaluating the readibility of informed consent forms available before anaesthesia: a comparative study. Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation. 2014;42(3):140.
• 12. Köse EÖ. Biyoloji 9 Ders Kitabında Hücre ile İlgili Metinlerin Okunabilirlik Düzeleri. Cankaya University Journal of Law. 2009;12(2):141-50.
• 13. Bezirci B, 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.
• 14. Ateşman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Language Journal. 1997;58:171-4.
• 15. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respiratory care. 2008;53(10):1310-5.
• 16. Kozanhan B, Tutar MS. Anesteziyoloji Alanında İnternet Sitelerinde Sunulan Hasta Bilgilendirme Metinlerinin Okunabilirliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Anesthesiology Reanimation. 2017;15(2):63-70.
• 17. Aksoy N, Kozanhan B, Eryilmaz MA, Tutar MS. Assessment of the readability of patient education materials regarding breast cancer on websites. Family Practice And Palliative Care. 2019;4(1):25-30.
• 18. AlKhalili R, Shukla PA, Patel RH, Sanghvi S, Hubbi B. Readability assessment of Internet-based patient education materials related to mammography for breast cancer screening. Academic radiology. 2015;22(3):290-5.
• 19. Mathew EM, Rajiah K, Sharma KK. Interpretation of consumer's perception on readability of consumer medical information leaflets on obesity and lipid lowering drugs with standard methods. Journal of Pharmacy Research. 2013;7(7):606-10.
• 20. Bağcı Z, Kozanhan B, Tutar MS. Readability of Patient Education Texts Presented on the Internet Related to Vaccines. Journal of Pediatric Infectious Diseases. 2019;14(04):180-5.
• 21. Kara A. Evaluation of the readability of online texts related with autism spectrum disorder. Experimental Biomedical Research. 2019;2(4):136-42.
• 22. Kara A, Polat H. Assessment of the readability of online texts related to specific learning disorder. Medicine. 2020;9(1):114-7.
• 23. Meleo-Erwin Z, Basch C, Fera J, Ethan D, Garcia P. Readability of online patient-based information on bariatric surgery. Health promotion perspectives. 2019;9(2):156.
• 24. Guinea E, Islands S. Human Development Report 2011-Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. Korea (Republic of). 2011;28:230.
• 25. Balçık PY, Taşkaya S, Şahin B. Sağlık okur-yazarlığı. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin. 2014;13(4):321-6.
• 26. Akbari K, Som R. Evaluating the quality of internet information for bariatric surgery. Obesity surgery. 2014;24(11):2003-6.
• 27. Modave F, Shokar NK, Peñaranda E, Nguyen N. Analysis of the accuracy of weight loss information search engine results on the internet. American Journal of Public Health. 2014;104(10):1971-8.