THE READABILITY AND QUALITY OF ONLINE HEALTH INFORMATION ON PLANTAR FASCIITIS

Öz

Objective: The quality and readability of internet resources about a common disease gain importance as a research topic. This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the quality and readability of the freely available online health information on plantar fasciitis. Method: Google search engine was used to search the “plantar fasciitis” term and the first 200 websites evaluated. The quality of the information on the websites was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score and the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification. The readability of the online content was evaluated by two separate scores: The Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Results: A total of 162 websites were evaluated. The FK and SMOG level of websites were 7.06±1.8 and 6.65±1.4, respectively. The JAMA Score was 2.21±1.2. Only 27 (16.7%) of the websites had a HONcode, whereas 135 (83.3%) did not. Commercial and Professional websites were found the lowest credible source. Conclusion: The online information about plantar fasciitis is variable and poor quality. We believe that the highest quality content can be found on health portals. Patients should be careful when reading information about plantar fasciitis from commercial websites.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Plantar Fasciitis
• Individual Health
• Web Usage

PLANTAR FASCİİTTE ONLİNE SAĞLIK BİLGİLERİNİN OKUNABİLİRLİĞİ VE KALİTESİ

Öz

Amaç: Yaygın bir hastalıkla ilgili internet kaynaklarının kalitesi ve okunabilirliği araştırma konusu olarak önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışma, plantar fasciit hakkında ücretsiz olarak sunulan çevrimiçi sağlık bilgilerinin kalitesini ve okunabilirliğini nicel olarak değerlendirmeyi amaçladı. Yöntem: “Plantar fasiit” terimini aramak için Google arama motoru kullanıldı ve ilk 200 web sitesi değerlendirildi. Web sitelerindeki bilgilerin kalitesi, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) skoru ve İnternette Sağlık Kodu [Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode)] ölçütleri kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Çevrimiçi içeriğin okunabilirliği iki farklı skor olan Flesch-Kincaid (FK) sınıflandırma seviyesi ve Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Toplam 162 web sitesi değerlendirildi. Web sitelerinin FK ve SMOG skorları sırasıyla 7.06±1.8 ve 6.65±1.4 olarak belirlendi. JAMA Skorları ise 2.21±1.2 olarak bulundu. Web sitelerinin sadece 27'sinde (%16.7) HON code bulunurken, 135'inde (%83.3) HON code bulunmadığı belirlendi. Ticari ve profesyonel web sitelerinin en düşük güvenilirliğe sahip kaynak olduğu bulundu. Sonuç: Plantar fasciit ile ilgili çevrimiçi bilgiler çelişkili ve düşük kalitedir. Yüksek kalite düzeyindeki içeriğin sağlık portallarında bulunabileceğini düşünüyoruz. Hastalar ticari web sitelerinden plantar fasiit hakkında bilgi okurken dikkatli olmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Plantar Fasciit
• Bireysel Sağlık
• Web Kullanımı

Kaynakça

1. Use of the Internet for Health Information https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db66.htm#ref1/Erişim Tarihi: 6 Ocak 2022.
2. Park E, Kwon M. Health-Related Internet Use by Children and Adolescents: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(4):e120.
3. Arcury TA, Sandberg JC, Melius KP, et al. Older adult internet use and eHealth literacy. J Appl Gerontol. 2020;39:141-50.
4. The most recent time you looked for information about health or medical topics, where did you go first? | HINTS n.d. https://hints.cancer.gov/view-questions-topics/question-details.aspx?PK_Cycle=11&qid=688/Erişim Tarihi: 6 Ocak 2022.
5. Morahan-Martin JM. How Internet Users Find, Evaluate, and Use Online Health Information: A Cross-Cultural Review. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 2004;7(5):497-510.
6. Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, et al. Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:1884-1891.
7. Cuan-Baltazar JY, Muñoz-Perez MJ, Robledo-Vega C, Pérez-Zepeda MF, Soto-Vega E. Misinformation of COVID-19 on the Internet: Infodemiology Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(2):e18444.
8. Kloosterboer A, Yannuzzi NA, Patel NA, Kuriyan AE, Sridhar J. Assessment of the Quality, Content, and Readability of Freely Available Online Information for Patients Regarding Diabetic Retinopathy. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137:1240-1245.

9. Rasenberg N, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Bindels PJ, van der Lei J, van Middelkoop M. Incidence, prevalence, and management of plantar heel pain: a retrospective cohort study in Dutch primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69:801-808.
10. League AC. Current concepts review: Plantar fasciitis. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29:358-366.
11. Cole C, Seto C, Gazewood J. Plantar Fasciitis: Evidence-Based Review of Diagnosis and Therapy- American Family Physician. Am Fam Physician. 2005;72:2237-2242.
12. Cinar E, Saxena S, Akkurt HE, Uygur F. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the management of plantar fasciitis: A randomized controlled trial. Foot (Edinb). 2020;44:101679.
13. Lim S-T, Kelly M, O’Neill S, D’Souza L. Assessing the Quality and Readability of Online Resources for Plantar Fasciitis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;60:1175-1178.
14. Alexa - Top sites n.d. https://www.alexa.com/topsites/ Erişim Tarihi: 6 Ocak 2022.
15. O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C, et al. Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet. Spine. 2014;39:645-649.
16. Lovett J, Gordon C, Patton S, Chen CX. Online information on dysmenorrhoea: An evaluation of readability, credibility, quality and usability. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28:3590-3598.
17. 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;277:1244-1245.
18. HONcode n.d. https://www.hon.ch/HONcode/ Erişim Tarihi: 6 Ocak 2022.
19. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221-233.
20. Mc Laughlin GH. SMOG grading-a new readability formula. J Read. 1969;12:639-646.
21. Meade CD, Smith CF. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 1991;17:153-158.
22. Kocyigit BF, Koca TT, Akaltun MS. Quality and readability of online information on ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38:3269-3274.
23. Ng MK, Mont MA, Piuzzi NS. Analysis of Readability, Quality, and Content of Online Information Available for “Stem Cell” Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:647-651.
24. Al-Ak’hali MS, Fageeh HN, Halboub E, Alhajj MN, Ariffin Z. Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on periodontal disease. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21:1-8.
25. Bagcier F, Yurdakul OV, Temel MH. Quality and readability of online information on myofascial pain syndrome. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021;25:61-66.
26. Ghodasra JH, Wang D, Jayakar RG, et al. The Assessment of Quality, Accuracy, and Readability of Online Educational Resources for Platelet-Rich Plasma. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2018;34:272-278.
27. Cisu TI, Mingin GC, Baskin LS. An evaluation of the readability, quality, and accuracy of online health information regarding the treatment of hypospadias. J Pediatr Urol. 2019;15(40):1-6.
28. Arif N, Ghezzi P. Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options. The Breast. 2018;37:6-12.
29. Premkumar A, Almeida BA, Lopez J, Pean CA, Nwachukwu BU, Sculco PK. The Quality of Online Resources Available to Patients Regarding Cannabidiol for Symptomatic Relief of Hip or Knee Arthritis is Poor. JAAOS Glob Res Rev. 2021;5:1-7.
30. Fascinating and Incredible YouTube Statistics | Brandwatch n.d. https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/youtube-stats/ Erişim Tarihi: 6 Ocak 2022.