Dermot O’Farrell's research while affiliated with University of Limerick and other places

Currently, patients use the Internet for health information relating to surgery. The aim of this study is to assess the readability and quality of online health information relating to acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. We hypothesise that the information will be of poor quality and be too difficult to read for the average patient. The top 50 results from Google, Bing, and Yahoo (MeSH “acromioclavicular joint reconstruction”, “ac joint reconstruction”) were used for analysis. Readability was assessed using three scores (Gunning FOG (GF), Flesch–Kincaid Grade (FKG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE)); these scores were generated using an online calculator (www.readable.com). Quality was assessed using a HONcode Google Toolbar extension and JAMA benchmark criteria. One hundred sixteen webpages were subject to analysis. The mean GF was 12.1 ± 2.9. The mean FKG was 10.6 ± 2.15. The mean FRE was 38.9 ± 13.3. FRE score found no webpage pitched at the 6th grade level, and only 4 (3.4%) and 2 (1.7%) of the webpages were pitched at this level according to the GF and FKG scores, respectively. The mean JAMA score was 1.9 ± 1.5. Only 10 webpages had HONcode certification. The quality of online patient information pertaining to acromioclavicular joint reconstruction is of poor quality and is too difficult to read. Physicians and health information providers should conform to health literacy standards. Health information providers should meet the minimum standards of verified assessment tools.

Background: Currently, patients use the internet for health information relating to surgery. The aim of this study is to assess the readability and quality of online health information relating to acromioclavicular joint reconstruction. We hypothesize that the information will be of poor quality and be too difficult to read for the average patient. Methods: The top 50 results from Google, Bing, and yahoo (MeSH “acromioclavicular joint reconstruction”, “ac joint reconstruction”) were used for analysis. Readability was assessed using 3 scores (Gunning FOG (GF), Flesch Kincaid Grade (FKG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), these scores were generated using an online calculator (www.readable.com). Quality was assessed using a HONcode google toolbar extension and JAMA benchmark criteria. Results: 116 URLs were subject to analysis. The mean GF was 12.11 ± 2.88. The mean FKG was 10.59 ± 2.15. The mean FRE was 38.86 ± 13.27. FRE score found no website pitched at 6th grade level, and only 4 (3.4%) and 2 (1.7%) of the websites were pitched at this level according to the GF and FKG scores respectively. The mean JAMA score was 1.91 ± 1.51. Only 10 websites had HONcode certification. Conclusion: The quality of online patient information pertaining to acromioclavicular joint reconstruction is of poor quality and is too difficult to read. Providing high quality online information, that is easy to read for the average patient, will lead to better patient contribution to the shared-decision making process, and thus better patient outcomes.