Readability of Websites Containing Information About Prostate Cancer Treatment Options
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
PURPOSE: Approximately 90 million American adults have literacy skills that test below a high school reading level. Websites written above this level can pose a challenge for those seeking online information about prostate cancer treatment options. In this study we determine the readability of selected websites using a systematic search process and validated readability formulas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified the 3 most popular keywords from 513 terms related to prostate cancer treatment options. We then systematically collected 270 websites from the top 3 search engines, and excluded from study those that were nonEnglish, not primarily text, irrelevant and/or duplicated. We used the Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Flesch Reading Ease to determine scores for each site. RESULTS: A total of 62 unique websites were analyzed. Median Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 12.0 (range 8.0 to 12.0) and median Flesch Reading Ease score was 38.1 (range 0.0 to 65.5). Only 3 sites (4.8%) were written below a high school reading level (less than 9.0). CONCLUSIONS: Few websites with discussions on prostate cancer treatment options are written below a high school reading level. This is problematic for a third of Americans who seek to further educate themselves using online resources. Clinicians can use this information to guide their patients to appropriate websites.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Readability of Websites Containing Information About Prostate Cancer Treatment Options
- Date Crossref
- 01/12/2012
- Éditeur
- Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.