Kolorektal Kanser Hakkında Bilgi İçeren İnternet Sitelerinin Okunabilirliği

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 3, 509 - 513, 25.12.2019

Mustafa Solak

https://doi.org/10.35440/hutfd.623920

Cited By: 6

Öz

Amaç: Kolorektal kanser (KRK), dünya çapında görülen üçüncü en yaygın
kanserdir. Biz bu çalışmamızda, KRK konusunda çevrimiçi sitelerin okunabilirlik
değerlerini Türkçe için dizayn edilmiş Ateşman ve Bezirci-Yılmaz okunabilirlik
formüllerine göre incelemeyi ve bu sitelerin içeriklerini değerlendirmeyi
amaçladık.

Materyal ve
Metod: Bu araştırma tanımlayıcı
tipte bir araştırma olup, araştırmanın verilerine ülkemizde en sık kullanılan
arama motoru olan Google (www.google.com.tr) aracılığı ile ulaşılmıştır.  Haziran 2019 tarihinde “kolon kanseri”,
“rektum kanseri” ve “kalın bağırsak kanseri” anahtar kelimeleri arama motorunda
tek tek yazılarak arama yapılmış ve karşımıza çıkan toplam 1250 internet sitesi
incelenmiştir. Bu sitelerden reklam, sadece video ve resim içeren, 10 cümleden
daha az bilgi içeren siteler, sohbet ve forum siteleri, ticari satış siteleri
ile hastalık hakkında bilgi içermeyen haber siteleri araştırma dışı
bırakılmıştır. Çalışmaya alınan sitelerdeki bilgiler kopyalanarak bilgisayar
programına aktarılmıştır. Bu program ile Ateşman ile Bezirci-Yılmaz
okunabilirlik değerleri, cümle sayısı, kelime sayısı, dört ve üzeri heceli
kelime sayısı, bir cümledeki ortalama 4 hece ve üstü kelime sayısı ve
kelimelerin ortalama hece sayısı hesaplanmıştır. Çalışmaya alınan internet
siteleri hazırlayan kişilere göre 4 gruba ayrılmıştır. Hastane ve sağlık
profesyonellerinin hazırladıkları siteler birinci grup, haber siteleri ikinci
grup, Sağlık Bakanlığı ve derneklerin hazırladıkları siteler üçüncü grup ve bu
üç gruba girmeyen siteler dördüncü grup olarak sınıflandırılmıştır.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya 59 (%38,1)’u 1. grup, 63(%40,6)’ü 2. grup, 15 (%9,7)’i 3.
grup ve 18 (%11,6)’i ise 4. grupta olmak üzere toplam 155 tane internet sitesi
alınmıştır. Çalışmaya alınan tüm sitelerin Ateşman okunabilirlik değerlerinin
medyan değeri 50,81 [46,65-55,75] idi. Çalışmaya alınan grupların Ateşman
okunabilirlik değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmadı
(p=0,082). Çalışmaya alınan tüm sitelerin Bezirci-Yılmaz okunabilirlik
değerlerinin medyan değeri 12,32 [10,83-14,29] idi. Çalışmaya alınan grupların
Bezirci-Yılmaz okunabilirlik değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı
fark saptanmadı (p=0,166). Sitelerin Ateşman’a göre aldıkları okunabilirlik
puanları yine Ateşman’a göre okunabilirlik aralıklarına göre ayrıldı. Çalışma
gruplarının Ateşman’a göre okunabilirlik aralıklarında istatistiksel olarak
anlamlı fark olduğu tespit edildi (p=0,035).

Sonuç: KRK hakkında hazırlanmış Türkçe internet sitelerindeki metinlerin
okunabilirlik seviyeleri, ülkemiz sağlık okuryazarlığı ve önerilen akademik
seviyenin üzerindedir. Bu sonuç bize KRK hakkında hazırlanmış Türkçe internet
sitelerindeki metinlerin anlaşılmasının güç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kolorektal kanser, okunabilirlik, internet

Readability of Websites Containing Information About Colorectal Cancer

Öz

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer seen
worldwide. In this study, we aimed to investigate the readability values of
online sites on CRC according to the readability formulas of Ateşman and
Bezirci-Yılmaz designed for Turkish and to evaluate the contents of these
sites.

Materials and Methods: This research is a descriptive type of
research and the data of the research is accessed through Google
(www.google.com.tr) which is the most commonly used search engine in our
country. In June 2019, “colon cancer”, “rectum cancer” and “large bowel
cancer" keywords were written separately in the search engine and a total
of 1250 websites were searched. Of these sites, those that including only
advertising, video and image less than 10 sentences with information, chat and
forum sites, commercial sales sites and news sites that do not contain
information about the disease were excluded from the research. The information
on the sites that included in the study was copied and transferred to the
computer program. With this program, the readability values of Ateşman and
Bezirci-Yılmaz, the number of sentences, the number of words, the number of
words with four and more syllables, the average number of words in a sentence
of 4 syllables and over, and the average number of words were calculated. The
web sites included in the study were divided into 4 groups according to the
people who prepared them. The sites prepared by the hospital and health
professionals were classified as the first group, the news sites as the second
group, the sites prepared by the Ministry of Health and associations as the
third group and the sites that did not fall into these three groups were
classified as the fourth group.

Results: In
this study, 59 (38.1%) were in Group 1, 63 (40.6%) were in Group 2, 15 (9.7%)
were in the third group and 18 (11.6%) were a total of 155 websites were
included in the fourth group. The median of Ateşman readability values of all
the sites included in the study was 50.81 [46.65-55.75]. There was no
statistically significant difference between Ateşman readability values of the
groups included in the study (p = 0.082). The median of Bezirci-Yılmaz
readability values of all sites included in the study was 12,32 [10,83-14,29].
There was no statistically significant difference between the readability
values of the Bezirci-Yılmaz groups (p = 0.166). The readability scores of the
sites according to Ateşman were again divided according to the readability
ranges according to Ateşman. There was a statistically significant difference in
the readability intervals of the study groups according to Ateşman (p = 0.035).

Conclusion: The readability levels of the texts on Turkish websites prepared about
CRC are above the health literacy level and recommended the academic level of
our country. This result suggests us that the texts in Turkish websites
regarding CRC are difficult to understand.

Kaynakça

• Referans1. Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends—an update. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers. 2016;25(1):16-27.
• Referans2. Edwards BK, Noone AM, Mariotto AB, Simard EP, Boscoe FP, Henley SJ, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(9):1290-314.
• Referans3. Bosetti C, Bertuccio P, Malvezzi M, Levi F, Chatenoud L, Negri E, et al. Cancer mortality in Europe, 2005–2009, and an overview of trends since 1980. Annals of oncology. 2013;24(10):2657-71.
• Referans4. Bialik K, Matsa KE. Key trends in social and digital news media. Pew Research Center. 2017;4.
• Referans5. Eysenbach G. Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. Digital media, youth, and credibility. 2008:123-54.
• Referans6. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Education & Behavior. 2006;33(3):352-73.
• Referans7. 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.
• Referans8. Ateşman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Language Journal. 1997;58:171-4.
• Referans9. 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.
• Referans10. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of applied psychology. 1948;32(3):221.
• Referans11. Koch-Weser S, Bradshaw YS, Gualtieri L, Gallagher SS. The Internet as a health information source: findings from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey and implications for health communication. Journal of health communication. 2010;15(sup3):279-93.
• Referans12. Basch EM, Thaler HT, Shi W, Yakren S, Schrag D. Use of information resources by patients with cancer and their companions. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society. 2004;100(11):2476-83.
• Referans13. Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. Bmj. 2002;324(7337):573-7.
• Referans14. Huang GJ, Penson DF. Internet health resources and the cancer patient. Cancer investigation. 2008;26(2):202-7.
• Referans15. Mancuso JM. Health literacy: a concept/dimensional analysis. Nursing & health sciences. 2008;10(3):248-55.
• Referans16. Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2002;52(3):134-49.
• Referans17. Brewer NT, Tzeng JP, Lillie SE, Edwards AS, Peppercorn JM, Rimer BK. Health literacy and cancer risk perception: implications for genomic risk communication. Medical Decision Making. 2009;29(2):157-66.
• Referans18. Hernandez LM, Hewitt M. Implications of health literacy for public health: Workshop summary: National Academies Press; 2014.
• Referans19. Dolan NC, Ferreira MR, Davis TC, Fitzgibbon ML, Rademaker A, Liu D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: does literacy make a difference? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2004;22(13):2617-22.
• Referans20. Lindau ST, Tomori C, Lyons T, Langseth L, Bennett CL, Garcia P. The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2002;186(5):938-43.
• Referans21. Bennett CL, Ferreira MR, Davis TC, Kaplan J, Weinberger M, Kuzel T, et al. Relation between literacy, race, and stage of presentation among low-income patients with prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1998;16(9):3101-4.
• Referans22. Hoc A. Committee on Health Literacy for the American Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Health literacy: Report of the council on scientific affairs. Jama. 1999;281(6):552-7.
• Referans23. Tian C, Champlin S, Mackert M, Lazard A, Agrawal D. Readability, suitability, and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2014;80(2):284-90. e2.