EN | TR
E-ISSN: 2147-2653
Evaluating the Information Content, Readability, Reliability and Quality of Turkish Websites on Osteoporosis
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Original Investigation
VOLUME: 29 ISSUE: 2
P: 109-116
August 2023

Evaluating the Information Content, Readability, Reliability and Quality of Turkish Websites on Osteoporosis

Turk J Osteoporos 2023;29(2):109-116
DOI: 10.4274/tod.galenos.2023.46872
Ramazan Yılmaz 1
Savaş Karpuz 1
Halim Yılmaz 1
İbrahim Solak 2
1. Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Konya Beyhekim Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Kliniği, Konya, Türkiye
2. Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Konya Beyhekim Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Aile Hekimliği Kliniği, Konya, Türkiye
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 24.10.2022
Accepted Date: 09.01.2023
Publish Date: 24.08.2023
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

Conclusion:

Current findings show that Turkish websites are far from providing sufficient and quality information on osteoporosis. Considering the importance of patient education in the management of OP treatment, the results obtained are quite inadequate. Physicians and patients should be aware of this situation; relevant institutions should develop the necessary health policies to solve the problem.

Results:

One hundred sixty websites were included in the study; 62 were in group 1, 58 were in group 2, and 40 were in group 3. The median of the Ateşman value is 48,2, which is difficult to read; the Bezirci-Yılmaz value was a median of 12,6. The JAMA score was 1,0 and almost all (98,7%) websites were found to be low reliable. Only 10 of the websites had complete information content. The DISCERN score was of poor quality, with a median of 29. It was also found to be of insufficient quality for PGQA and GQS. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of readability, reliability, and quality criteria.

Materials and Methods:

In September 2022, the words “osteoporosis, bone melt” were scanned on Google search and the first 20 websites were investigated. The websites were divided into three groups according to the creator: Group 1= hospitals, associations, and official institutions; group 2= health professionals; and group 3= others. The readability level was evaluated according to the Ateşman and Bezirci-Yılmaz formula; the reliability and quality were evaluated according to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score, the Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN) scale, the Global Quality scale (GQS), and the Physician Global Quality assessment (PGQA). The information content was analyzed with reference to the subject headings in the patient information texts on the official website of the Turkish Osteoporosis Association.

Objective:

To investigate the information content, readability, reliability, and quality level of websites that provide online information in Turkish about osteoporosis (OP).

References

1
Siris ES, Adler R, Bilezikian J, Bolognese M, Dawson-Hughes B, Favus MJ, et al. The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group. Osteoporos Int 2014;25:1439-43.
2
Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY; Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2019;30:3-44.
3
Tuzun S, Eskiyurt N, Akarirmak U, Saridogan M, Johansson H, McCloskey E, et al. The impact of a FRAX-based intervention threshold in Turkey: the FRAX-TURK study. Arch Osteoporos 2012;7:229-35.
4
Kirazlı Y, Atamaz Çalış F, El Ö, Gökçe Kutsal Y, Peker Ö, Sindel D, et al. Updated approach for the management of osteoporosis in Turkey: a consensus report. Arch Osteoporos 2020;15:137.
5
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Hanehalkı Bilişim Teknolojileri (BT) Kullanım Araştırması. 2022. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2022-45587
6
Paakkari L, Okan O. COVID-19: health literacy is an underestimated problem. Lancet Public Health 2020;5:e249-50.
7
Taghvaei R, Dimitrova D, Karaman M, Sehouli J. Knowledge and understanding risk factors and preventive measures for osteoporosis in women: results of a survey in 502 women with and without a migration background. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022;23:824.
8
Piao HH, He J, Zhang K, Tang Z. A cross-sectional study to estimate associations between education level and osteoporosis in a Chinese postmenopausal women sample. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:21014-23.
9
Wallace LS, Turner LW, Ballard JE, Keenum AJ, Weiss BD. Evaluation of web-based osteoporosis educational materials. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2005;14:936-45.
10
Hutchinson N, Baird GL, Garg M. Examining the Reading Level of Internet Medical Information for Common Internal Medicine Diagnoses. Am J Med 2016;129:637-9.
11
Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Beuschel B, Farah MH, Katabi A, et al. Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:1884-91.
12
Türkiye Arama Motorları Pazar Payı: 12 Aylık Trend. https://www.similarweb.com/tr/engines/turkey/
13
Solak İ, Kozanhan B, Ay E. Readability of Turkish Websites Containing COVID-19 Information. Anatol J Family Med 2021;4:57–62.
14
Türkiye Osteoporoz Derneği, Osteoporoz hakkında bilmek istedikleriniz. http://osteoporoz.org.tr/osteoporozhakkinda/Osteoporoz-Hakk%C4%B1nda.html
15
Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997;277:1244-5.
16
Ateşman E. Türkçede okunabilirliğin ölçülmesi. Dil Dergisi 1997;58:71–4.
17
Bezirci B, Yılmaz A. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEÜ FMD 2010;12:49-62.
18
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:105-11.
19
Gökdoğan F. Yazılı materyallerin kalitesinin gözden geçirilmesi. Onkoloji Hemşireliği Derneği Bülteni 2003:8-16.
20
Śledzińska P, Bebyn MG, Furtak J. Quality of YouTube Videos on Meningioma Treatment Using the DISCERN Instrument. World Neurosurg 2021;153:e179-86.
21
Boyer C, Gaudinat A, Hanbury A, Appel RD, Ball MJ, Carpentier M, et al. Accessing Reliable Health Information on the Web: A Review of the HON Approach. Stud Health Technol Inform 2017;245:1004-8.
22
Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2070-7.
23
Moon H, Lee GH. Evaluation of Korean-Language COVID-19-Related Medical Information on YouTube: Cross-Sectional Infodemiology Study. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:e20775.
24
Kocyigit BF, Akaltun MS, Sahin AR. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease link. Clin Rheumatol 2020;39:2049-54.
25
Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Węgierek P. The Impact of Online Health Information on Patient Health Behaviours and Making Decisions Concerning Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:880.
26
Scull A. Dr. Google Will See You Now: Google’s Health Information Previews and Implications for Consumer Health. Med Ref Serv Q 2020;39:165-73.
27
Muse K, McManus F, Leung C, Meghreblian B, Williams JM. Cyberchondriasis: fact or fiction? A preliminary examination of the relationship between health anxiety and searching for health information on the Internet. J Anxiety Disord 2012;26:189-96.
28
Fuzzell LN, Richards MJ, Fraenkel L, Stark SL, Politi MC. What information can the lay public find about osteoporosis treatment? A descriptive study coding the content and quality of bisphosphonate information on the internet. Osteoporos Int 2019;30:2299-310.
29
Goh M, Nguyen HH, Khan NN, Milat F, Boyle JA, Vincent AJ. Identifying and addressing osteoporosis knowledge gaps in women with premature ovarian insufficiency and early menopause: A mixed-methods study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2019;91:498-507.
30
des Bordes JKA, Suarez-Almazor ME, Volk RJ, Lu H, Edwards B, Lopez-Olivo MA. Online Educational Tool to Promote Bone Health in Cancer Survivors. J Health Commun 2017;22:808-17.
31
Yurdakul OV, Kilicoglu MS, Bagcier F. Evaluating the reliability and readability of online information on osteoporosis. Arch Endocrinol Metab 2021;65:85-92.
32
Dinçel YM, Can E, Amiry M, Genç E, Çağlar S, Morina M, et al. Osteoporoz Hakkındaki Türkçe Videolarda Hangi Bilgiler Verilmektedir ve YouTube Güvenilir ve Kaliteli Bilgiler Sağlıyor mu: YouTube Videolarının Sistematik Bir Analizi. Turk J Osteoporos 2022;28:118-24.
33
Onder ME, Onder CE, Zengin O. Quality of English-language videos available on YouTube as a source of information on osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos 2022;17:19.
34
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2022 Human Development Index. https://www.undp.org/turkiye/press-releases/new-undp-report-issues-urgent-call-solidarity-halt-global-reversal-development-gains
35
Önder K, Topatan Z. İnternet Arama Motorları Piyasasına Yönelik Yoğunlaşma Analizi: Türkiye Örneği. International Journal Of Education Technology and Scientific Researches 2018;3:28-42.
36
Basavakumar D, Flegg M, Eccles J, Ghezzi P. Accuracy, completeness and accessibility of online information on fibromyalgia. Rheumatol Int 2019;39:735-42.
37
Otu M, Karagözoğlu Ş. Fibromiyalji Sendromu ile İlgili Türkiye’deki Bilgi Sunan Web Sitelerinin Okunabilirlik, İçerik ve Kalite Açısından İncelenmesi. Turk J Osteoporos 2022;28:19-25.