Assessing parental comprehension of online resources on childhood pain

Le résumé fourni par la source

We aimed to examine the patient education materials (PEMs) on the internet about "Child Pain" in terms of readability, reliability, quality and content. For our observational study, a search was made on February 28, 2024, using the keywords "Child Pain," "Pediatric Pain," and "Children Pain" in the Google search engine. The readability of PEMs was assessed using computer-based readability formulas (Flesch Reading Ease Score [FRES], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [FKGL], Automated readability index (ARI), Gunning Fog [GFOG], Coleman-Liau score [CL], Linsear Write [LW], Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG]). The reliability and quality of websites were determined using the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) score, Global Quality Score (GQS), and DISCERN score. 96 PEM websites included in our study. We determined that the FRES was 64 (32-84), the FKGL was 8.24 (4.01-15.19), ARI was 8.95 (4.67-17.38), GFOG was 11 (7.1-19.2), CL was 10.1 (6.95-15.64), LW was 8.08 (3.94-19.0) and SMOG was 8.1 (4.98-13.93). The scores of readability formulas showed that, the readability level of PEMs was statistically higher than sixth-grade level with all formulas (P = .011 for FRES, P < .001 for GFOG, P < .001 for ARI, P < .001 for FKGL, P < .001 for CL and P < .001 for SMOG), except LW formula (P = .112). The websites had moderate-to-low reliability and quality. Health-related websites had the highest quality with JAMA score. We found a weak negative correlation between Blexb score and JAMA score (P = .013). Compared to the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health, the readability grade level of child pain-related internet-based PEMs is quite high. On the other hand, the reliability and quality of PEMs were determined as moderate-to-low. The low readability and quality of PEMs could cause an anxious parent and unnecessary hospital admissions. PEMs on issues threatening public health should be prepared with attention to the recommendations on readability.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.