How understandable are the patient education materials about flat foot on the Internet for parents?

Flat foot is a common reason for parents to visit orthopedic clinics. As the Internet has become an easy-search platform, parents often seek online educational materials before seeking out a professional. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality, readability, and understandability of suc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medicine (Baltimore) 2023-02, Vol.102 (6), p.e32791-e32791
Hauptverfasser: Çiftci, Sadettin, Şahin, Erdem, Aktaş, Süha Ahmet, Safali, Selim, Durgut, Fatih, Aydin, Bahattin Kerem
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e32791
container_issue 6
container_start_page e32791
container_title Medicine (Baltimore)
container_volume 102
creator Çiftci, Sadettin
Şahin, Erdem
Aktaş, Süha Ahmet
Safali, Selim
Durgut, Fatih
Aydin, Bahattin Kerem
description Flat foot is a common reason for parents to visit orthopedic clinics. As the Internet has become an easy-search platform, parents often seek online educational materials before seeking out a professional. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality, readability, and understandability of such online materials for parents. An Internet search was performed for “flat foot” and “pes planus” using the Google search engine. The readability was evaluated using 6 different grading systemsFlesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Fry Readability score, Gunning Fog Index tests, and Automated Readability Index. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool test was used to assess the understandability. For quality assessment, the Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criteria and Health on the Net code were applied. One hundred nine websites were included and evaluated for readability, understandability, and quality. The mean readability grade for all websites was 10.5 ± 2.0. The mean Gunning Fog Index tests and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level scores for all websites were 12.4 ± 2.2 and 9.7 ± 2.1 sequentially. The mean Coleman–Liau index score was 10.0 ± 1.5, and the average Fry Readability score was 9.9 ± 2.0. The automated readability index for all websites was 10.3 ± 2.5. The average Flesch Reading Ease score for all educational materials was 59.3 ± 10.1. The average Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool score for all educational materials was 81% (range, 70–87%). The mean Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criterion for all websites was 1.0, with a range from 1.0 and 2.0. Eighteen (16.5%) websites had Health on the Net certificates. Readability, understandability, and quality of patient education materials about flat feet on the Internet vary and are often worse than professional recommendations.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/MD.0000000000032791
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9907911</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2779348815</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4506-bf55f562a5e830e4ff846bca7b5b26eb779c16bb83298183db91a177955d1f883</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUcluFDEQtRAoGYZ8ARLykUsnXtrbBYSykEiJuISzZXdXMw2e9mC7M8rf48lkAXywS1VvsV4h9J6SY0qMOrk5OyYvhzNl6Cu0oILLRhjZvkYLQpholFHtIXqb809CKFesPUCHXGpGhJQL1F3GLZ6nHlIubuqdD4BdAlxWgDeujDAVDP3c1TJOeO0KpNGFjJ2Pc8FDcPWKseA63FGupgqYYNdMlZ8qPX9-h94MlQNHj-8Sfb84vz29bK6_fb06_XLddK0gsvGDEIOQzAnQnEA7DLqVvnPKC88keKVMR6X3mjOjqea9N9TR2hWip4PWfIk-7XU3s19D31Xz5ILdpHHt0r2NbrT_TqZxZX_EO2sMqeHRKvDxUSDF3zPkYtdj7iAEN0Gcs2XVjLda14yXiO-hXYo5JxiebSixu_XYmzP7_3oq68PfP3zmPO2jAto9YBtDTTL_CvMWkl2BC2X1oCeUYQ0jjBNGCWl20pL_AUqonCo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2779348815</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How understandable are the patient education materials about flat foot on the Internet for parents?</title><source>Wolters Kluwer Open Health</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Çiftci, Sadettin ; Şahin, Erdem ; Aktaş, Süha Ahmet ; Safali, Selim ; Durgut, Fatih ; Aydin, Bahattin Kerem</creator><creatorcontrib>Çiftci, Sadettin ; Şahin, Erdem ; Aktaş, Süha Ahmet ; Safali, Selim ; Durgut, Fatih ; Aydin, Bahattin Kerem</creatorcontrib><description>Flat foot is a common reason for parents to visit orthopedic clinics. As the Internet has become an easy-search platform, parents often seek online educational materials before seeking out a professional. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality, readability, and understandability of such online materials for parents. An Internet search was performed for “flat foot” and “pes planus” using the Google search engine. The readability was evaluated using 6 different grading systemsFlesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Fry Readability score, Gunning Fog Index tests, and Automated Readability Index. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool test was used to assess the understandability. For quality assessment, the Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criteria and Health on the Net code were applied. One hundred nine websites were included and evaluated for readability, understandability, and quality. The mean readability grade for all websites was 10.5 ± 2.0. The mean Gunning Fog Index tests and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level scores for all websites were 12.4 ± 2.2 and 9.7 ± 2.1 sequentially. The mean Coleman–Liau index score was 10.0 ± 1.5, and the average Fry Readability score was 9.9 ± 2.0. The automated readability index for all websites was 10.3 ± 2.5. The average Flesch Reading Ease score for all educational materials was 59.3 ± 10.1. The average Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool score for all educational materials was 81% (range, 70–87%). The mean Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criterion for all websites was 1.0, with a range from 1.0 and 2.0. Eighteen (16.5%) websites had Health on the Net certificates. Readability, understandability, and quality of patient education materials about flat feet on the Internet vary and are often worse than professional recommendations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-7974</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-5964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032791</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36820566</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</publisher><subject>Comprehension ; Flatfoot ; Health Literacy ; Humans ; Internet ; Observational Study ; Parents ; Patient Education as Topic ; Teaching Materials ; United States</subject><ispartof>Medicine (Baltimore), 2023-02, Vol.102 (6), p.e32791-e32791</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4506-bf55f562a5e830e4ff846bca7b5b26eb779c16bb83298183db91a177955d1f883</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4506-bf55f562a5e830e4ff846bca7b5b26eb779c16bb83298183db91a177955d1f883</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3249-3420</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9907911/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9907911/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36820566$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Çiftci, Sadettin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Şahin, Erdem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aktaş, Süha Ahmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Safali, Selim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durgut, Fatih</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydin, Bahattin Kerem</creatorcontrib><title>How understandable are the patient education materials about flat foot on the Internet for parents?</title><title>Medicine (Baltimore)</title><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><description>Flat foot is a common reason for parents to visit orthopedic clinics. As the Internet has become an easy-search platform, parents often seek online educational materials before seeking out a professional. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality, readability, and understandability of such online materials for parents. An Internet search was performed for “flat foot” and “pes planus” using the Google search engine. The readability was evaluated using 6 different grading systemsFlesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Fry Readability score, Gunning Fog Index tests, and Automated Readability Index. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool test was used to assess the understandability. For quality assessment, the Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criteria and Health on the Net code were applied. One hundred nine websites were included and evaluated for readability, understandability, and quality. The mean readability grade for all websites was 10.5 ± 2.0. The mean Gunning Fog Index tests and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level scores for all websites were 12.4 ± 2.2 and 9.7 ± 2.1 sequentially. The mean Coleman–Liau index score was 10.0 ± 1.5, and the average Fry Readability score was 9.9 ± 2.0. The automated readability index for all websites was 10.3 ± 2.5. The average Flesch Reading Ease score for all educational materials was 59.3 ± 10.1. The average Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool score for all educational materials was 81% (range, 70–87%). The mean Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criterion for all websites was 1.0, with a range from 1.0 and 2.0. Eighteen (16.5%) websites had Health on the Net certificates. Readability, understandability, and quality of patient education materials about flat feet on the Internet vary and are often worse than professional recommendations.</description><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Flatfoot</subject><subject>Health Literacy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Observational Study</subject><subject>Parents</subject><subject>Patient Education as Topic</subject><subject>Teaching Materials</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0025-7974</issn><issn>1536-5964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUcluFDEQtRAoGYZ8ARLykUsnXtrbBYSykEiJuISzZXdXMw2e9mC7M8rf48lkAXywS1VvsV4h9J6SY0qMOrk5OyYvhzNl6Cu0oILLRhjZvkYLQpholFHtIXqb809CKFesPUCHXGpGhJQL1F3GLZ6nHlIubuqdD4BdAlxWgDeujDAVDP3c1TJOeO0KpNGFjJ2Pc8FDcPWKseA63FGupgqYYNdMlZ8qPX9-h94MlQNHj-8Sfb84vz29bK6_fb06_XLddK0gsvGDEIOQzAnQnEA7DLqVvnPKC88keKVMR6X3mjOjqea9N9TR2hWip4PWfIk-7XU3s19D31Xz5ILdpHHt0r2NbrT_TqZxZX_EO2sMqeHRKvDxUSDF3zPkYtdj7iAEN0Gcs2XVjLda14yXiO-hXYo5JxiebSixu_XYmzP7_3oq68PfP3zmPO2jAto9YBtDTTL_CvMWkl2BC2X1oCeUYQ0jjBNGCWl20pL_AUqonCo</recordid><startdate>20230210</startdate><enddate>20230210</enddate><creator>Çiftci, Sadettin</creator><creator>Şahin, Erdem</creator><creator>Aktaş, Süha Ahmet</creator><creator>Safali, Selim</creator><creator>Durgut, Fatih</creator><creator>Aydin, Bahattin Kerem</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3249-3420</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230210</creationdate><title>How understandable are the patient education materials about flat foot on the Internet for parents?</title><author>Çiftci, Sadettin ; Şahin, Erdem ; Aktaş, Süha Ahmet ; Safali, Selim ; Durgut, Fatih ; Aydin, Bahattin Kerem</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4506-bf55f562a5e830e4ff846bca7b5b26eb779c16bb83298183db91a177955d1f883</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Flatfoot</topic><topic>Health Literacy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Observational Study</topic><topic>Parents</topic><topic>Patient Education as Topic</topic><topic>Teaching Materials</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Çiftci, Sadettin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Şahin, Erdem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aktaş, Süha Ahmet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Safali, Selim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durgut, Fatih</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydin, Bahattin Kerem</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Çiftci, Sadettin</au><au>Şahin, Erdem</au><au>Aktaş, Süha Ahmet</au><au>Safali, Selim</au><au>Durgut, Fatih</au><au>Aydin, Bahattin Kerem</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How understandable are the patient education materials about flat foot on the Internet for parents?</atitle><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><date>2023-02-10</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>102</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e32791</spage><epage>e32791</epage><pages>e32791-e32791</pages><issn>0025-7974</issn><eissn>1536-5964</eissn><abstract>Flat foot is a common reason for parents to visit orthopedic clinics. As the Internet has become an easy-search platform, parents often seek online educational materials before seeking out a professional. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality, readability, and understandability of such online materials for parents. An Internet search was performed for “flat foot” and “pes planus” using the Google search engine. The readability was evaluated using 6 different grading systemsFlesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Fry Readability score, Gunning Fog Index tests, and Automated Readability Index. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool test was used to assess the understandability. For quality assessment, the Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criteria and Health on the Net code were applied. One hundred nine websites were included and evaluated for readability, understandability, and quality. The mean readability grade for all websites was 10.5 ± 2.0. The mean Gunning Fog Index tests and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level scores for all websites were 12.4 ± 2.2 and 9.7 ± 2.1 sequentially. The mean Coleman–Liau index score was 10.0 ± 1.5, and the average Fry Readability score was 9.9 ± 2.0. The automated readability index for all websites was 10.3 ± 2.5. The average Flesch Reading Ease score for all educational materials was 59.3 ± 10.1. The average Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool score for all educational materials was 81% (range, 70–87%). The mean Journal of American Medical Association benchmark criterion for all websites was 1.0, with a range from 1.0 and 2.0. Eighteen (16.5%) websites had Health on the Net certificates. Readability, understandability, and quality of patient education materials about flat feet on the Internet vary and are often worse than professional recommendations.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</pub><pmid>36820566</pmid><doi>10.1097/MD.0000000000032791</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3249-3420</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0025-7974
ispartof Medicine (Baltimore), 2023-02, Vol.102 (6), p.e32791-e32791
issn 0025-7974
1536-5964
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9907911
source Wolters Kluwer Open Health; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Comprehension
Flatfoot
Health Literacy
Humans
Internet
Observational Study
Parents
Patient Education as Topic
Teaching Materials
United States
title How understandable are the patient education materials about flat foot on the Internet for parents?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T19%3A47%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20understandable%20are%20the%20patient%20education%20materials%20about%20flat%20foot%20on%20the%20Internet%20for%20parents?&rft.jtitle=Medicine%20(Baltimore)&rft.au=%C3%87iftci,%20Sadettin&rft.date=2023-02-10&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e32791&rft.epage=e32791&rft.pages=e32791-e32791&rft.issn=0025-7974&rft.eissn=1536-5964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/MD.0000000000032791&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2779348815%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2779348815&rft_id=info:pmid/36820566&rfr_iscdi=true