4.3 Article

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

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 8, Pages 618-626

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2012.684406

Keywords

Hearing impairment; hearing aids; internet health information; health information quality; health information readability

Funding

  1. Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research [2009-0055]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study evaluated the quality and readability of English-language internet information for adults with hearing impairment and their significant others. Design: Two keyword pairs (hearing loss and hearing aids) were entered into five country-specific versions of the most commonly used internet search engine in May 2011. Sample: For each of the 10 searches, the first 10 relevant websites were included. After removing duplicates, a total of 66 websites were assessed. Their origin (commercial, non-profit organization, or government), date of last update, quality (Health On the Net (HON) certification and DISCERN scores), and readability (Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Formula, and Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook) were assessed. Results: Most websites were of commercial origin and had been updated within the last 18 months. Their quality and readability was highly variable. Only 14% of the websites had HON certification. Websites that were of non-profit organization origin had significantly higher DISCERN scores. Readability measures show that on average, only people with at least 11-12 years of education could read and understand the internet information presented. Conclusions: Based on these results, this article provides a list of recommendations for website developers and clinicians wishing to incorporate internet information into their practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available