What is the readability of information about retinopathy of prematurity on Turkish websites?

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the readability of Turkish websites related to retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and to determine whether there is a difference in readability between clinic-hospital websites and public health information websites. Materials and Methods: The top 100 websites from the Google search “Retinopathy of Prematurity” in Turkish were compiled. The text on each website has been edited to remove unnecessary text. The readability value was used for Turkish. Results: Fifty-three percent (n=35) of the 66 sites included in the study were clinic-hospital websites. The overall Ateşman and Bezirci- Yılmaz readability values of all sites included in the study were 55±12.7 and 10.6±2 respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between clinic-hospital and public websites in terms of the number of words, characters, difficult words, sentences, average word and sentence lengths, and readability index, except for readability level. Conclusion: The readability of web-based topics related to ROP was found to be moderate according to Ateşman and at the high school level according to Bezirci-Yılmaz. There was no significant difference between clinic-hospital and public health information websites when compared using scoring systems. The readability of websites providing information about ROP aligns with the average education level in Turkey.

Keywords

• Retinopathy of prematurity
• Health literacy
• Readability
• Internet

References

1. Kim SJ, Port AD, Swan R, Campbell JP, Chan RVP, Chiang MF. Retinopathy of prematurity: a review of risk factors and their clinical significance. Sur Ophthalmol 2018; 63: 618-37. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2018.04.002
2. Huhta AM, Hirvonen N, Huotari ML. Health literacy in webbased health information environments: systematic review of concepts, definitions, and operationalization for measurement. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20: e10273. doi: 10.2196/10273
3. Mazmudar RS, Sheth A, Tripathi R, Scott JF. Readability of online Spanish patient education materials in dermatology. Arch Derm Res 2021; 313: 201-4. doi: 10.1007/s00403-020-02036-7
4. Gordejeva J, Zowalla R, Pobiruchin M, Wiesner M. Readability of English, German, and Russian disease-related wikipedia pages: Automated computational analysis. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24: e36835. doi: 10.2196/36835
5. Sönmez MG, Sönmez LÖ, Kozanhan B, Dündar ZD. Is there a difference between the readabilities of informed consent forms used for elective and emergency procedures in Turkey? Ther Innov Regul Sci 2020; 54: 626-30. doi: 10.1007/s43441-019-00096-0
6. Kuzucu I. The comparison of readability between information texts from web sites of private clinics and private hospitals. Ann Med Res 2021; 26: 2694-7. doi: 10.5455/ annalsmedres.2019.07.391
7. Dağdelen C, Erdemoğlu E. Determination of the readability level of consent forms used in the Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic at Suleyman Demirel University. Cureus 2023; 15: e37147. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37147
8. Er A, Ay IE, Horozoğlu Ceran T. Evaluating Turkish readability and quality of strabismus-related websites. Cureus 2024; 16: e58603. doi: 10.7759/cureus.58603

9. İnci FH, Serçekuş P. An evaluation of web-based education material about breastfeeding and breast milk. Pamukkale Med J 2015; 1: 45-50. doi: 10.5505/ptd.2015.83713
10. Ateşman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. Lang J 1997; 58: 171-4.
11. Bezirci B, Yılmaz AE. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Engineering J Sci Eng 2010; 12: 49-62.
12. Hruby GG. Three requirements for justifying an educational neuroscience. Br J Educ Psychol 2012; 82: 1-23. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02068.x
13. Turkish Statistical Institute National Education Statistics (2023). [online] Website: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/ Index?p=National-Education-Statistics-2023-53444 [accessed 07 September 2024].