Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digital Health Literacy: Evaluating the Readability and Reliability of Cochlear Implant Patient Information on the Web

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hearing aids and implants are used to treat hearing loss, with cochlear implants being the most successful option for severe sensorineural hearing loss. Patients frequently use the internet as a trusted source of clinical information before committing to any therapeutic procedure, including receiving a cochlear implant. A health resource’s readability and dependability influence its value to patients. Readability refers to how easily language can be understood, whereas reliability refers to the correctness and consistency of the information presented. JAMA standards and the DISCERN tool were used to assess the reliability of the websites listed. For readability analysis, the FRE, FKG and GFI were chosen. The acceptable readability level was set to < 7 for the FKG, GF score over 17 as the equivalent of college-level education and ≥ 80.0 for the FRE. The readability scores vary across the sources, suggesting a range of comprehension levels required for understanding the cochlear implant patient information found on Google. There was a statistical difference detected in Discern score between the groups (p = 0.008). The mean discern score was significantly higher in hospital generated sources when compared to industry (3.13 ± 0.69 vs. 2.11 ± 0.78, p = 0.03).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Singh S, Jain S (2020) Factors associated with deaf-mutism in children attending special schools of rural central India: a survey. J Family Med Primary Care 9(7):3256–3263. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_222_20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. World report on hearing (2021) Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  3. Roche JP, Hansen MR (2015) On the horizon: Cochlear implant technology. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 48(6):1097–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2015.07.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Internet World Stats—Usage and Population Statistics. Available online: https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.html

  5. European Commission (2015) Flash Eurobarometer 404 (European Citizens’ Digital Health Literacy). In: Cologne GDA (ed)

  6. State of the Internet. The state of the Internet in New Zealand. Available online: https://internetnz.nz/sites/default/files/SOTI%20FINAL.pdf

  7. Search Engine Market Share Worldwide. http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share

  8. Van Riel N, Auwerx K, Debbaut P et al (2017) The effect of Dr Google on doctor-patient encounters in primary care: a quantitative, observational, cross-sectional study. BJGP Open 1:bjgpopen17X100833

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wu J, Hunt L, Wood AJ (2021) Readability and reliability of Rhinology patient information on Google. Aust J Otolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.21037/ajo-21-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Murphy B, Irwin S, Condon F (2022) Readability and quality of online information for patients pertaining to revision knee arthroplasty: an objective analysis. Surgeon 20(6):e366–e370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Saleh D, Fisher JH, Provencher S, Liang Z, Ryerson CJ (2022) A systematic evaluation of the quality, accuracy, and reliability of internet websites about pulmonary arterial hypertension. Ann Am Thorac Soc 19(8):1404–1413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Ak’hali MS, Fageeh HN, Halboub E, Alhajj MN, Ariffin Z (2021) Quality and readability of web-based arabic health information on periodontal disease. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 21(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01413-0. (Published 2021 Feb 4)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Maung JKH, Roshan A, Sood S (2006) P183: FESS on the internet. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 135:P272–P273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA (1997) Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor–let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277(15):1244–1245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Commun Health 53(2):105–111. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Test document readability. Available from: https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/?url=https://www.mayo.edu/research/clinical-trials. Accessed 18 Sept 2023

  17. Edmunds MR, Barry RJ, Denniston AK (2013) Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information. JAMA Ophthalmol 131(12):1610–1616. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.5521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kher A, Johnson S, Griffith R (2017) Readability assessment of online patient education material on congestive heart failure. Adv Prev Med 2017:9780317. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9780317

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cline RJ, Haynes KM (2001) Consumer health information seeking on the internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res 16(6):671–692. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/16.6.671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fox S. Health Topics [Internet]: Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech; 2011 [3 August 2020]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/02/01/health-topics-2/

  21. Woodward-Kron R, Connor M, Schulz PJ, Elliott K (2014) Educating the patient for health care communication in the age of the world wide web: a qualitative study. Acad Med 89(2):318–325. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahsanuddin S, Cadwell JB, Povolotskiy R, Paskhover B (2021) Quality, reliability, and readability of online information on rhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 32(6):2019–2023. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000007487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C et al (2014) Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(10):E645–E649. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Arts H, Lemetyinen H, Edge D (2020) Readability and quality of online eating disorder information-are they sufficient? A systematic review evaluating websites on Anorexia Nervosa using DISCERN and Flesch readability. Int J Eat Disord 53(1):128–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barke A, Bleichhardt G, Rief W, Doering BK (2016) The cyberchondria severity scale (CSS): German validation and development of a short form. Int J Behav Med 23(5):595–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Devitt BM, Hartwig T, Klemm H et al (2017) Comparison of the source and quality of information on the internet between anterolateral ligament reconstruction and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an Australian experience. Orthop J Sports Med 5(12):2325967117741887. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117741887

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schaffer JL, Bozic KJ, Dorr LD, Miller DA, Nepola JV (2008) AOA symposium: direct-to-consumer marketing in orthopaedic surgery: Boon or boondoggle? J Bone Jt Surg Am 90(11):2534–2543

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no funding required to take up the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, JIPMER, Dhanvantari Nagar, Puducherry, India

    Vishak MS & Kalaiarasi Raja

  2. JIPMER, Dhanvantari Nagar, Puducherry, India

    Adwaith Krishna Surendran

  3. Department of PSM, JIPMER, Dhanvantari Nagar, Puducherry, India

    Nandini B Krishnan

Authors
  1. Vishak MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adwaith Krishna Surendran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nandini B Krishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kalaiarasi Raja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors have equally contributed to the case report. VMS is the major contributor in writing the manuscript. AKS and KR participated in writing and editing with VMS and NBK was a part of data interpretation along with VMS.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vishak MS.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethics approval was not required for the study as the study is conducted using open access data in internet and no actual human/animal data were used.

Consent for Publication

Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details and/or clinical images was obtained from the patient. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor of this journal.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

MS, V., Surendran, A.K., Krishnan, N.B. et al. Digital Health Literacy: Evaluating the Readability and Reliability of Cochlear Implant Patient Information on the Web. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 76, 987–991 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-023-04341-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-023-04341-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation