Quality and Reliability Analysis of Online Information on HIV Infection: A Systematic Evaluation Using DISCERN and JAMA Criteria

Öz

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the quality, reliability, and readability of online health information on HIV infection using DISCERN and JAMA BENCHMARK criteria, and to contribute to the improvement of digital health literacy. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the keywords "HIV" and "HIV infection" in Google and Yandex search engines. A total of 202 websites from the first 10 pages of both engines were screened. After excluding sites with video content, duplicate content, advertising-focused material, non-Turkish sources, and those available only in PDF/Word format, 93 websites were included in the analysis. Content quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument and JAMA BENCHMARK criteria; readability was evaluated with the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formula. Results: Of the evaluated websites, 47.3% belonged to private hospitals, 26.9% to private individuals, 12.9% to private laboratories, 6.5% to associations, 3.2% to universities, and 1.1% to the Ministry of Health. According to the DISCERN scoring, no website was classified as high or medium quality. Based on JAMA BENCHMARK criteria, 7 sites (7.5%) were rated as high quality (score 3–4) and 34 sites (36.6%) as medium quality (score 2). The average readability score was 63.82 ± 8.51. Conclusion: The majority of online information on HIV infection is of low quality and reliability. The predominance of private health institution websites raises concerns regarding scientific depth and impartiality. Strengthening digital health literacy, improving content quality standards, and directing users to reliable information sources are recommended.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Health Literacy
• Discern
• HIV
• JAMA BENCHMARK
• Online Information
• Readability

Destekleyen Kurum

NONE

HIV Enfeksiyonu Hakkındaki Çevrimiçi Bilgilerin Kalite ve Güvenilirlik Analizi: DISCERN ve JAMA Kriterlerine Göre Sistematik Değerlendirme

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, HIV enfeksiyonu ile ilgili çevrimiçi sağlık bilgilerinin kalite, güvenilirlik ve okunabilirlik düzeylerini DISCERN ve JAMA BENCHMARK kriterleri doğrultusunda değerlendirmek ve dijital sağlık okuryazarlığına katkıda bulunmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Google ve Yandex arama motorlarında “HIV” ve “HIV enfeksiyonu” anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak sistematik bir tarama yapılmıştır. Her iki arama motorunun ilk 10 sayfasında yer alan toplam 202 web sitesi incelenmiş; video içerikli, kopya içerik barındıran, reklam odaklı, Türkçe olmayan ve yalnızca PDF/Word formatındaki siteler dışlandıktan sonra 93 site analize dahil edilmiştir. İçerik kalitesi DISCERN ölçeği ve JAMA BENCHMARK kriterleri ile değerlendirilmiş; okunabilirlik düzeyi Flesch Okuma Kolaylığı (FRE) formülü kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Bulgular: İncelenen sitelerin %47,3’ü özel hastanelere, %26,9’u özel kişilere, %12,9’u özel laboratuvarlara, %6,5’i derneklere, %3,2’si üniversitelere, %1,1’i Sağlık Bakanlığına aittir. DISCERN puanlamasına göre hiçbir site yüksek veya orta kalitede sınıflandırılamamıştır. JAMA BENCHMARK kriterlerine göre ise 7 site (%7,5) yüksek kalite (puan 3–4), 34 site (%36,6) orta kalite (puan 2) olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Okunabilirlik puanı ortalaması 63,82 ± 8,51 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: HIV enfeksiyonu hakkındaki çevrimiçi bilgilerin büyük bölümü düşük kalite ve güvenilirlik düzeyine sahiptir. Özel sağlık kuruluşlarına ait sitelerin ağırlıkta olması, bilimsel derinlik ve tarafsızlık açısından endişe oluşturmaktadır. Dijital sağlık okuryazarlığının güçlendirilmesi, içerik kalite standartlarının iyileştirilmesi ve kullanıcıların güvenilir bilgi kaynaklarına yönlendirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• HIV
• çevrimiçi bilgi
• DISCERN
• JAMA BENCHMARK
• okunabilirlik
• dijital sağlık okuryazarlığı

Destekleyen Kurum

YOKTUR

Kaynakça

1. Altun, A., Kütük, B., & Ünal, E. (2022). Evaluation of YouTube videos as sources of information about complex regional pain syndrome. Korean Journal of Pain, 35(3), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.3.319
2. Charnock, D., Shepperd, S., Needham, G., & Gann, R. (1999). DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105
3. Chen, G., Wu, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, X., & Li, Y. (2025). Readability and information quality of LLM-Generated HIV content: a methodological content evaluation. BMC Infectious Diseases, 25(1), 1624. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-025-10931-5
4. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
5. Cohen, Y., Noah, O., Daniel, E., & Andrée-Anne, R. (2025). Evaluating the readability and quality of online health information regarding hemifacial microsomia. Journal of CraniofacialSurgery,36(2),e123–e128. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000012327
6. Çakmak, G., & Çil, E. (2014). Evaluation of 4th grade science and technology course book with readability formulas: the case of exploring and knowing the world of living creatures. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 1(3). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/turkjes/issue/20670/220452
7. DuBay, W. H. (2004). The Principles of Readability. Impact Information.
8. GBD 2021 HIV Collaborators. (2024). Global, regional, and national burden of HIV/AIDS, 1990–2021, and forecasts to 2050, for 204 countries and territories: the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet HIV, 11(12), e807–e822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(24)00235-2

9. Murray, T., Hagey, J., Willms, D., Shillington, R., & Desjardins, R. (2008). Health literacy in Canada: A healthy understanding. Canadian Council on Learning. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/890661nm
10. Özmen, E. E. (2023). Readability and contents evaluation of patient informing texts on orthognathic surgery in Turkish websites: Methodological study. Journal of Dental Health and Oral Research, 4(2), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.5336/dentalsci.2022-92085
11. Parczewski, M., Papadopoulos, A., Gisinger, M., Paraskevis, D., & Vandamme, A. M. (2025). Control of HIV across the WHO European region: progress and remaining challenges. The Lancet Regional Health Europe,52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101310
12. Şahin, T. N., & Özmen, E. E. (2023). Evaluation of readability and content of patient information texts on Turkish websites about pediatric dentistry under sedation. European Annals of Dental Sciences, 50(1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2023.0010
13. Tolu, S., & Basım, P. (2018). A New perspective on readability and content assessment of patient information texts published on the internet sites on lymphedema. Journal of Current Researches on Health Sector, 8(2), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.26579/jocrehes.28
14. UNAIDS. (2024). Fact sheet 2024: Latest global and regional statistics on the status of the AIDS epidemic. https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/UNAIDS_FactSheet_en.pdf Wallace, L. S., & Hinshaw, K. (2005). Evaluation of web-based osteoporosis educational materials. Journal of Women's Health, 14(10), 936–945. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2005.14.936
15. Whitehead, L., Ghosh, M., & Walker, D. K. (2023). Barriers to and facilitators of digital health among culturally and linguistically diverse populations: qualitative systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e42719. https://doi.org/10.2196/42719
16. Yeşilyurt, M. E., Kaya, M., & Altınkaynak, Ş. (2016). Türkiye'de illere göre ortalama ve beklenen okullaşma yılı. Pamukkale Journal of Eurasian Socioeconomic Studies, 3(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5505/pjess.2016.49492
17. Zirek, T., & Taşsöker, M. (2024). Ağız kanserleri ile ilgili bilgi sunan türkçe internet sitelerinin okunabilirliği ve içerik kalitesi: metodolojik çalışma. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Dental Sciences, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.5336/dentalsci.2024-104481