Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T16:11:55.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tinnitus information online – does it ring true?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2018

R M McKearney ,
R C MacKinnon ,
M Smith  and
R Baker
R M McKearney*
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK Audiology Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK Audiology Department, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
R C MacKinnon
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK Audiology Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK Department of Vision and Hearing Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
M Smith
Affiliation:
Audiology Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK
R Baker
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Mr Richard M McKearney, Audiology Department, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To assess, using standardised tools, the quality and readability of online tinnitus information that patients are likely to access.

Methods

A standardised review was conducted of websites relating to tinnitus and its management. Each website was scored using the DISCERN instrument and the Flesch Reading Ease scale.

Results

Twenty-seven unique websites were evaluated. The mean DISCERN score of the websites was 34.5 out of 80 (standard deviation = 11.2). This would be considered ‘fair’ in quality. Variability in DISCERN score between websites was high (range, 15–57: ‘poor’ to ‘very good’). Website readability was poor, with a mean Flesch Reading Ease score of 52.6 (standard deviation = 7.7); this would be considered ‘difficult’ to read.

Conclusion

In general, the quality of tinnitus websites is fair and the readability is poor, with substantial variability in quality between websites. The Action on Hearing Loss and the British Tinnitus Association websites were identified as providing the highest quality information.

Keywords

InternetTinnitusHealth LiteracyInformation Dissemination
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 11 , November 2018 , pp. 984 - 989
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Mr R M McKearney takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Nondahl, DM, Cruickshanks, KJ, Dalton, DS, Klein, BE, Klein, R, Schubert, CR et al. The impact of tinnitus on quality of life in older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2007;18:257–66Google Scholar
2Davis, A, El Rafaie, A. Epidemiology of tinnitus. In: Tyler, RS, ed. Tinnitus Handbook. San Diego: Singular, Thomson Learning, 2000;1–23Google Scholar
3Tassone, P, Georgalas, C, Patel, NN, Appleby, E, Kotecha, B. Do otolaryngology out-patients use the internet prior to attending their appointment? J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:34–8Google Scholar
4Glynn, RW, O'Duffy, F, O'Dwyer, TP. Patterns of Internet and smartphone use by parents of children attending a pediatric otolaryngology service. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013;77:699–702Google Scholar
5Diaz, JA, Griffith, RA, Ng, JJ, Reinert, SE, Friedmann, PD, Moulton, AW. Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17:180–5Google Scholar
6Office for National Statistics. Internet Access – Households and Individuals 2017. In: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividuals/2017 [21 October 2017]Google Scholar
7Gerber, BS, Eiser, AR. The patient–physician relationship in the Internet age: future prospects and the research agenda. J Med Internet Res 2001;3:E15Google Scholar
8van Uden-Kraan, CF, Drossaert, CH, Taal, E, Seydel, ER, van de Laar, MA. Participation in online patient support groups endorses patients’ empowerment. Patient Educ Couns 2009;74:61–9Google Scholar
9Eysenbach, G, Diepgen, TL. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. BMJ 1998;317:1496–500Google Scholar
10Murray, E, Lo, B, Pollack, F, Donelan, K, Catania, J, Lee, K et al. The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1727–34Google Scholar
11Wald, HS, Dube, CE, Anthony, DC. Untangling the Web – the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2007;68:218–24Google Scholar
12Pothier, DD. Patients and the internet: are websites on glue ear readable? Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30:566Google Scholar
13Flesch, R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948;32:221–33Google Scholar
14Shepperd, S, Charnock, D, Gann, B. Helping patients access high quality health information. BMJ 1999;319:764–6Google Scholar
15Kieran, SM, Skinner, LJ, Donnelly, M, Smyth, DA. A critical evaluation of Web sites offering patient information on tinnitus. Ear Nose Throat J 2010;89:E11–14Google Scholar
16Eysenbach, G, Powell, J, Kuss, O, Sa, ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287:2691–700Google Scholar
17Charnock, D. The DISCERN Handbook. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1998Google Scholar
18Charnock, 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;53:105–11Google Scholar
19Ademiluyi, G, Rees, CE, Sheard, C. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50:151–5Google Scholar
20Fackrell, K, Hoare, DJ, Smith, S, McCormack, A, Hall, DA. An evaluation of the content and quality of tinnitus information on websites preferred by general practitioners. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012;12:1–13Google Scholar
21StatCounter Global Stats. 2015 Top 5 desktop, tablet & console search engines from June 2014 to June 2015. In: http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-ww-monthly-201406-201506/ [22 July 2015]Google Scholar
22Advanced Web Ranking. 2014 Google organic CTR study. In: https://www.advancedwebranking.com/google-ctr-study-2014.html [15 July 2017]Google Scholar
23GroupM UK. Evaluating the UK search marketing landscape infographic. In: http://www.mecmanchester.co.uk/evaluating-the-uk-search-marketing-landscape-infographic/ [7 March 2016]Google Scholar
24D'Alessandro, DM, Kingsley, P, Johnson-West, J. The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:807–12Google Scholar
25Daraz, L, MacDermid, JC, Wilkins, S, Gibson, J, Shaw, L. The quality of websites addressing fibromyalgia: an assessment of quality and readability using standardised tools. BMJ Open 2011;1:e000152Google Scholar
26Hargrave, DR, Hargrave, UA, Bouffet, E. Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro Oncol 2006;8:175–82Google Scholar
27El-Shunnar, SK, Hoare, DJ, Smith, S, Gander, PE, Kang, S, Fackrell, K et al. Primary care for tinnitus: practice and opinion among GPs in England. J Eval Clin Pract 2011;17:684–92Google Scholar
28Som, R, Gunawardana, NP. Internet chemotherapy information is of good quality: assessment with the DISCERN tool. Br J Cancer 2012;107:403Google Scholar
29Cajita, MI, Rodney, T, Xu, J, Hladek, M, Han, HR. Quality and health literacy demand of online heart failure information. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2016;32:156–64Google Scholar
30Wilson, P. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet. BMJ 2002;324:598–602Google Scholar
31Graham, S, Brookey, J. Do patients understand? Perm J 2008;2:67–9Google Scholar
32Nutbeam, D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int 2000;15:259–67Google Scholar
33Cheng, C, Dunn, M. Health literacy and the Internet: a study on the readability of Australian online health information. Aust N Z J Public Health 2015;39:309–14Google Scholar
34Safeer, RS, Keenan, JK. Health literacy: the gap between physicians and patients. Am Fam Physician 2005;72:463–8Google Scholar
35Plain English Campaign. In: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ [20 March 2016]Google Scholar
36Action on Hearing Loss. Tinnitus. In: https://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/your-hearing/tinnitus.aspx [30 March 2016]Google Scholar
37British Tinnitus Association. Get support. In: http://www.tinnitus.org.uk/for-health-professionals [28 January 2015]Google Scholar