Assessing COVID-19 Health Information on Google Using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST): Cross-sectional and Readability Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic spurred an increase in online information regarding disease spread and symptomatology. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose is to systematically assess the quality and readability of articles resulting from frequently Google-searched COVID-19 terms in the United States. METHODS: We used Google Trends to determine the 25 most commonly searched health-related phrases between February 29 and April 30, 2020. The first 30 search results for each term were collected, and articles were analyzed using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST). Three raters scored each article in authorship, attribution, conflict of interest, currency, complementarity, and tone. A readability analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Exactly 709 articles were screened, and 195 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The mean article score was 18.4 (SD 2.6) of 28, with 7% (14/189) scoring in the top quartile. National news outlets published the largest share (70/189, 36%) of articles. Peer-reviewed journals attained the highest average QUEST score compared to national/regional news outlets, national/state government sites, and global health organizations (all P<.05). The average reading level was 11.7 (SD 1.9, range 5.4-16.9). Only 3 (1.6%) articles were written at the recommended sixth grade level. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-related articles are vastly varied in their attributes and levels of bias, and would benefit from revisions for increased readability.

Mobile health applications for atrial fibrillation: A readability and quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health applications may improve patient education and self-care for a complex condition such as atrial fibrillation (AF). Little is known about the accessibility of mobile health applications ("apps") and their readability. We evaluated the readability and quality of available apps for AF. METHODS: We searched the Apple and Google Play app stores with the terms "atrial fibrillation" and "afib." We downloaded English-language apps (up to n = 100 for each term) and categorized them by name, App store, cost, content, uploading agency (heath care associated [HCA] versus non-HCA), target audience (health care professional [HCP] versus non-HCP), scientific validity (i.e., citation of peer-reviewed or validated medical information), and user ratings. We analyzed the text of apps intended for a non-HCP target audience for readability with 10 established measures. RESULTS: Of the 206 downloaded apps, 50.5% were excluded as unrelated to AF, inaccessible, or non-English language. The majority of apps contained information about AF (63.2% Apple, 52.2% Google Play) and AF detection (52.6% Apple, 56.5% Google Play). A minority of non-HCP apps contained scientifically validated content (Apple, 15.8%; Google Play, 13.0%; P = NS). App mean readability was grade 12.1 ±â€¯2.6. CONCLUSIONS: Most AF apps lacked scientific validation and were written at excessively high reading-grade levels. Our results suggest caution with mobile health apps, particularly for users with limited health literacy. There is potential opportunity for a multi-disciplinary effort by regulatory agencies, healthcare organizations, and app stores to improve relevance, scientific validity, and readability of AF apps for patients with this complex and morbid disease.

Radiology Online Patient Education Materials Provided by Major University Hospitals: Do They Conform to NIH and AMA Guidelines?

AIMS: The internet creates opportunities for Americans to access medical information about imaging tests and modalities to guide them in their medical decision-making. Owing to health literacy variations in the general population, the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommend patient education resources to be written between the third and seventh grade levels. Our purpose is to quantitatively assess the readability levels of online radiology educational materials, written for the public, in 20 major university hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In September and October 2016, we identified 20 major university hospitals with radiology residency-affiliated hospital systems. On each hospital׳s website, we downloaded all radiology-related articles written for patient use. A total of 375 articles were analyzed for readability level using 9 quantitative readability scales that are well validated in the medical literature. RESULTS: The 375 articles from 20 hospital systems were collectively written at an 11.4 ± 3.0 grade level (range: 8.4-17.1). Only 11 (2.9%) articles were written at the recommended third to seventh grade levels. Overall, 126 (33.6%) were written above a full high-school reading level. University of Washington Medical Center׳s articles were the most readable with a reading level corresponding to 7.9 ± 0.9. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of websites at major academic hospitals with radiology residencies designed to provide patients with information about imaging were written above the nationally recommended health literacy guidelines to meet the needs of the average American. This may limit the benefit that patients can derive from these educational materials.

An online readability analysis of pathology-related patient education articles: an opportunity for pathologists to educate patients.

Information for patients regarding their clinical conditions and treatment options is widely available online. The American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommend that online patient-oriented materials be written at no higher than a seventh-grade reading level to ensure full comprehension by the average American. This study sought to determine whether online patient-oriented materials explaining common pathology procedures are written at appropriate reading levels. Ten pathology procedures that patients would likely research were queried into Google search, and plain text from the first 10 Web sites containing patient education materials for each procedure was analyzed using 10 validated readability scales. We determined mean reading levels of materials grouped by readability scale, procedure, and Web site domain, the overall average reading level of all resources, and popular Web site domains. One hundred Web sites were accessed; one was omitted for short length (<100 words). The average reading grade level of the 99 materials, none of which met national health literacy guidelines (range, 7.3-17.4), was 10.9. Twenty-nine articles (29%) required a high school education for full comprehension, and 4 (4%) required an undergraduate college education. Most frequently accessed Web site domains included medlineplus.gov, webmd.com (both accessed 7 times), and labtestsonline.org (accessed 6 times). Average reading levels of the 11 most commonly accessed Web sites ranged from 8.25 (patient.info) to 12.25 (mayoclinic.org). Readability levels of most online pathology-related patient education materials exceeded those recommended by national health literacy guidelines. These patient education materials should be revised to help patients fully understand them.

Online palliative care and oncology patient education resources through Google: Do they meet national health literacy recommendations?

PURPOSE: The Google search engine is a resource commonly used by patients to access health-related patient education information. The American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommend that patient education resources be written at a level between the third and seventh grade reading levels. We assessed the readability levels of online palliative care patient education resources using 10 readability algorithms widely accepted in the medical literature. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In October 2016, searches were conducted for 10 individual terms pertaining to palliative care and oncology using the Google search engine; the first 10 articles written for the public for each term were downloaded for a total of 100 articles. The terms included palliative care, hospice, advance directive, cancer pain management, treatment of metastatic disease, treatment of brain metastasis, treatment of bone metastasis, palliative radiation therapy, palliative chemotherapy, and end-of-life care. We determined the average reading level of the articles by readability scale and Web site domain. RESULTS: Nine readability assessments with scores equivalent to academic grade level found that the 100 palliative care education articles were collectively written at a 12.1 reading level (standard deviation, 2.1; range, 7.6-17.3). Zero articles were written below a seventh grade level. Forty-nine (49%) articles were written above a high school graduate reading level. The Flesch Reading Ease scale classified the articles as "difficult" to read with a score of 45.6 of 100. The articles were collected from 62 Web site domains. Seven domains were accessed 3 or more times; among these, www.mskcc.org had the highest average reading level at a 14.5 grade level (standard deviation, 1.4; range, 13.4-16.1). CONCLUSIONS: Most palliative care education articles readily available on Google are written above national health literacy recommendations. There is need to revise these resources to allow patients and their families to derive the most benefit from these materials.