Quality and readability of English-language internet information for adults with hearing impairment and their significant others

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 51, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 618-626

  Laplante Lévesque, Ariane ^a,b   Brännström, K Jonas ^a,c   Andersson, Gerhard ^a,d   Lunner, Thomas ^a,b  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b OTICON A S   (Denmark)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Health information quality; Health information readability; Hearing aids; Hearing impairment; Internet health information

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; INTERNET; STANDARD;

ALGORITHMS; COMPREHENSION; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; INTERNET;

EID: 84863917143     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2012.684406     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ademiluyi G., Rees C.E. & Sheard C.E. 2003. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the internet. Patient Educ Couns , 50, 151-155. (Pubitemid 36627424)
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006. Health Literacy, Australia. Retrieved September 9, 2011 from http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ subscriber.nsf/0/73ED158C6B14BB5ECA2574720011AB83/File/42330-2006.pdf
3. Berger M.,Wagner T.H. & Baker L.C. 2005. Internet use and stigmatized illness. Soc Sci Med , 61, 1821-1827. (Pubitemid 40982174)
4. Bernstam E.V., Shelton D.M., Walji M. & Meric-Bernstam F. 2005. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the world wide web: What can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform , 74, 13-19. (Pubitemid 40051313)
5. Boyer C., Selby M., Scherrer J.R. & Appel R.D. 1998. The Health On the Net code of conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med , 28, 603-610. (Pubitemid 28539446)
6. Bundorf M.K., Wagner T.H., Singer S.J. & Baker L.C. 2006. Who searches the internet for health information? Health Serv Res , 41, 819-836. (Pubitemid 43725351)
7. Bylund C.L., Gueguen J.A., Sabee C.M., Imes R.S., Li Y. et al. 2007. Provider-patient dialogue about internet health information: An exploration of strategies to improve the provider-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns , 66, 346-352. (Pubitemid 46726953)
8. Canadian Council on Learning. 2008. Health Literacy in Canada: A Healthy Understanding. Retrieved September 9, 2011 from http://www.ccl-cca. ca/pdfs/HealthLiteracy/HealthLiteracyReportFeb2008E.pdf.
9. Charnock D., Shepperd S., Needham G. & Gann R. 1999. DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health , 53 , 105-111. (Pubitemid 29043309)
10. Couper M.P., Singer E., Levin C.A., Fowler F.J. Jr., Fagerlin A. et al. 2010. Use of the internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: Results from the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making , 30(Suppl. 5), 106-114.
11. Eysenbach G. & Kahler C. 2002. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ , 324, 57-577.
12. Eysenbach G., Powell J., Kuss O. & Sa E.-R. 2002. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: A systematic review. JAMA , 287, 2691-2700. (Pubitemid 34533548)
13. Flesch R. 1948. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol , 32, 221-233.
14. Fox S. 2011. Health topics: 80% of internet users look for health information online (Pew Internet & American Life Project, February 1, 2011). Retrieved September 9, 2011 from http://www.pewinternet.org//media//Files/ Reports/2011/PIP-HealthTopics.pdf.
15. Gagliardi A. & Jadad A.R. 2002. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: Chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ , 324, 569-573. (Pubitemid 34214336)
16. Greywoode J., Bluman E., Spiegel J. & Boon M. 2009. Readability analysis of patient information on the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery website. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg , 141, 555-558.
17. Hesse B.W., Nelson D.E., Kreps G.L., Croyle R.T., Arora N.K. et al. 2005. Trust and sources of health information: The impact of the internet and its implications for health care providers. Arch Intern Med , 165, 2618-2624.
18. Hatu R. 1996. The stigma attached to hearing impairment. Scan Audiol , 25(Suppl. 43), 12-24.
19. Hunter B.G. & Bridger M.W. 2008. An out-patient study into the suitability of providing ear, nose, & throat patients with internet based information. Internet J Med Inform , 3(2).
20. Kieran S.M., Skinner L.J., Donnelly M. & Smyth D.A. 2010. A critical evaluation of web sites offering patient information on tinnitus. ENT-Ear Nose Throat J , 89 , E11-E14.
21. Laplante-L vesque A., Hickson L. & Worrall L. 2010. Factors infl uencing rehabilitation decisions of adults with acquired hearing impairment. Int J Audiol , 49, 497-507.
22. Laplante-L vesque A., Pichora-Fuller M.K. & Gagn J.-P. 2006. Providing an internet-based audiological counselling programme to new hearing aid users: A qualitative study. Int J Audiol , 45, 697-706.
23. Ley P. & Florio T. 1996. The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med , 1, 7-28. (Pubitemid 126717024)
24. McLaughlin G.H. 1969. SMOG grading: A new readability formula. J Reading , 12, 639-646.
25. McMullan M. 2006. Patients using the internet to obtain health information: How this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns , 63, 24-28. (Pubitemid 44331549)
26. Meade C.D. & Smith C.F. 1991. Readability formulas: Cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns , 17, 153-158.
27. Nair E.L. & Cienkowski K.M. 2010. The impact of health literacy on patient understanding of counseling and education materials. Int J Audiol , 49, 71-75.
28. Net Marketshare 2011. Search Engine Market Share [May 2011]. Retrieved September 9, 2011 from http://marketshare.hitslink.com.
29. Paasche-Orlow M.K., Parker R.M., Gazmararian J.A., Nielsen-Bohlman L.T. & Rudd R.R. 2005. The prevalence of limited health literacy. J Gen Intern Med , 20, 175-184. (Pubitemid 40626997)
30. Pandolfi ni C. & Bonati M. 2002. Follow up of quality of public oriented health information on the worldwide web: Systematic re-evaluation. BMJ , 324, 582-583. (Pubitemid 34214340)
31. Pothier D.D. 2005. Patients and the internet: Are websites on glue ear readable? Clin Otolaryngol , 30, 566-576.
32. Robins D., Holmes J. & Stansbury M. 2010. Consumer health information on the web: The relationship of visual design and perceptions of credibility. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol , 61, 13-29.
33. Silberg W.M., Lundberg G.D. & Musacchio R.A. 1997. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: Caveat lector et viewor: Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA , 277, 1244-1245. (Pubitemid 27172750)
34. Sommerhalder K., Abraham A., Zufferey M.C., Barth J. & Abel T. 2009. Internet information and medical consultations: Experiences from patients, and physicians perspectives. Patient Educ Couns , 77, 266-271.
35. Thor n E., Svensson M., Tarnqvist A., Andersson G., Carlbring P. et al. 2011. Rehabilitative online education versus internet discussion group for hearing aid users: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Audiol , 22, 274-285.
36. Walsh T.M. & Volsko T.A. 2008. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care , 53, 1310-1315.
37. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). WAI: Strategies, guidelines, resources to make the web accessible to people with disabilities. Retrieved September 9, 2011 from http://www.w3.org/WAI.