Evaluation of Readability and Content of Patient Information Texts on Turkish Websites about Pediatric Dentistry Under Sedation

Abstract

Aim: Disability status, fear, and anxiety can pose an obstacle to the planned dental treatment in children. In such cases, the delivery of dental treatment with sedation is a very common treatment method and more comfortable for both pediatric patients and physicians. This study aims to evaluate the readability and content of patient information texts on websites related to the delivery of dental treatments with sedation in pediatric patients. Material and Methods: The first 60 Turkish websites were scanned in Google (Google LLC, MountainView, California, USA) search using the keywords “pediatric dental treatment with sedation”. The patient information texts in 31 websites meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated according to the Ateşman Readability Index (ARI) and their contents were also examined in terms of whether or not providing sufficient information about the procedure. Results: The texts examined in the study were moderately difficult (52.9±9.4) according to the ARI and at Grade 11-12 level, most of the websites examined were owned by private clinics (64.5%) and the texts were prepared by pedodontists. The content of information on the examined websites could be deemed sufficient in terms of definition of sedation (100%), the indications (100%) and the benefits (83.8%); however, the complications (29.1%), possible procedure-related complications (16.2%), its difference from general anesthesia (54.8%) and the cost (29.1%) were not addressed sufficiently. Conclusion: The results of the study suggested that the relevant patient information texts on Turkish websites need to be organized in a more understandable manner. For this purpose, readability tests may be used before publishing the text. The reason why most of the texts did not mention contraindications, complications, and cost of sedation may be intending not to create fear or prejudice about the procedure among readers. However, when preparing an information text on an interventional medical procedure, it is legally and ethically required to inform the reader about that procedure fully and clearly.

Keywords

• sedation
• pediatric dentistry
• readability
• patient information texts

References

1. 1. Leelataweedwud P, Vann Jr WF. Adverse events and outcomes of conscious sedation for pediatric patients: study of an oral sedation regimen. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2001;132(11):1531-9.
2. 2. Bodur H, Berrin I, Öztaş N, Odabaş ME, ÇINAR Ç, Ulusu T. Kaygılı çocukların diş tedavileri sırasında uygulanan azot protoksit/oksijen sedasyonunun etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2011;28(1):29-33.
3. 3. Bolgül B, Serindere G. Pedodontide Sedasyon. Dental and Medical Journal-Review.1(1):28-36.
4. 4. American Academy of pediatrıc dentistry. Clinical guideline on the elective use of conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia in pediatric dental patients. Pediatr Dent.2003; 25: 73-78.
5. 5. Association AD. Guidelines for the use of sedation and general anesthesia by dentists. Adopted by the ADA House of Delegates. 2016.
6. 6. Coté CJ, Wilson S, Pediatrics AAo, Dentistry AAoP. Guidelines for monitoring and management of pediatric patients before, during, and after sedation for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Pediatrics. 2019;143(6).
7. 7. Özler CÖ, Keçeli Tİ, TEKÇİÇEK MU. Çocuk Diş Hekimliği ve Genel Anestezi. Ankara Medical Journal. 2019;19(3):658-64.
8. 8. Kip Gülay, Atabek D, Alkan M, Alaçam A. Çocuk Hasta Grubunda Diş Tedavileri Sırasında Uygulanan Sedasyon İşlemlerinin Retrospektif İncelenmesi. GMJ. 2019;30:184-7.

9. 9. Berrin I. Diş Hekimliğinde Sedasyon. ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi. 2021;10(3):150-8.
10. 10. Öztürk G, Gümüş H. Çocuklarda Genel Anestezi Altında Uygulanan Diş Tedavileri ile İlgili YouTube™ Videolarının İçerik Analizi. Selcuk Dental Journal. 2021;8(1):140-7.
11. 11. Akbulut AS. İnternet Ortamındaki Şeffaf Plak Tedavisi ile İlgili Bilgilerin Okunabilirlik Analizi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Dergisi. 2022;4(1):7-11.
12. 12. Jayaratne YS, Anderson NK, Zwahlen RA. Readability of websites containing information on dental implants. Clinical oral implants research. 2014;25(12):1319-24.
13. 13. Kaya DI. Readability and content assessment of patient information texts on oral cancers found on Turkish websites. International Dental Research. 2021;11(Suppl. 1):91-5.
14. 14. Ateşman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Language Journal. 1997;58(2):171-74.
15. 15. Çoban A. Okunabilirlik Kavramına Yönelik Bir Derleme Çalışması. Dil ve Edebiyat Egitimi Dergisi. 2014(9).
16. 16. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of applied psychology. 1948;32(3):221.
17. 17. Svider PF, Agarwal N, Choudhry OJ, Hajart AF, Baredes S, Liu JK, et al. Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology–head and neck surgery departments. American journal of otolaryngology. 2013;34(1):31-5.
18. 18. TOPSAKAL KG, AKSOY M, AKBULUT AS. Çocuklara Uygulanan Ortodontik Tedavilere İlişkin Youtube Videolarının İçeriklerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Dergisi.3(3):108-14.
19. 19. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of medical Internet research. 2006;8(2):e506.
20. 20. Browser Market Share Turkey June 2021 - June 2022. [29.07.2022 tarihinde https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/turkey/#month-ly-202101-202201 adresinden erişilmiştir.]
21. 21. Kim K, Kwon N. Profile of e-patients: analysis of their cancer information-seeking from a national survey. Journal of health communication. 2010;15(7):712-33.
22. 22. Dilaver E, Kılınç DD. Evaluation of quality and reliability of websites about orthognathic surgery using Google Trends (TM) application. APOS Trends in Orthodontics. 2020.
23. 23. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu [2019]. Hane halkı bilişim teknolojileri (BT) kullanım araştırması. [30.07.2022 tarihinde https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2019-30574#:~:text=%C4%B0nternet%20kullanan%20bireylerin%20oran%C4%B1%20%75,kad%C4%B1nlarda%20%68%2C9%20 adresinden erişilmiştir.]
24. 24. Madden M, Fox S. Finding answers online in sickness and in health: Pew Internet & American Life Project Washington, DC; 2006.
25. 25. DuBay WH. The principles of readability. Online Submission. 2004.
26. 26. Bezirci B, Yılmaz AE. A software library for measurement of the readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEÜ FMD. 2010;12(3):49-62.
27. 27. 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? Clinical Oral Investigations. 2019;23(4):1569-74.
28. 28. McMorrow SM, Millett DT. Adult orthodontics: a quality assessment of Internet information. Journal of orthodontics. 2016;43(3):186-92.
29. 29. Yesilyurt M, Karadeniz O, Gulel F, Caglar A, Uyar S. Mean and expected years of schooling for provinces in Turkey. PJESS. 2016;3(1):1-7.
30. 30. Nelson TM, Xu Z. Pediatric dental sedation: challenges and opportunities. Clinical, cosmetic, and investigational dentistry. 2015;7:97.
31. 31. Coté CJ, Notterman DA, Karl HW, Weinberg JA, McCloskey C. Adverse sedation events in pediatrics: a critical incident analysis of contributing factors. Pediatrics. 2000;105(4):805-14.
32. 32. Chicka MC, Dembo JB, Mathu-Muju KR, Nash DA, Bush HM. Adverse events during pediatric dental anesthesia and sedation: a review of closed malpractice insurance claims. Pediatric dentistry. 2012;34(3):231-8.
33. 33. Kocaman G. Periodontal cerrahi öncesi dental anksiyete düzeyi ve progresif gevşeme egzersizlerinin vital bulgular üzerine etkisi. Cukurova Medical Journal. 2019;44:352-7.