ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020
Web-Based Health Information Following the Renewal of the Cervical Screening Program in Australia: Evaluation of Readability, Understandability, and Credibility.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tools/instruments for assessing YouTube videos on surgical procedures for patient/consumer health education: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative Expert Evaluation of Multimodal Large Language Models for Pediatric Rash Diagnosis: Clinical Utility, Safety, Information Quality, and Readability.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Navigating Home Care Packages: A Content and Usability Analysis of Consumer-Facing Information on Aged Care Provider Websites.Australasian journal on ageing · 2026Article
- Online patient education resources in bariatric surgery: a systematic evaluation of quality, readability, transparency, and representation.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- ChatGPT and other large language models in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multidimensional audit of reliability, quality, and readability.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Quality and Reliability of ChatGPT-4's Responses on Allergen Immunotherapy Using Validated Instruments for Health Information Quality Assessment.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
- Quality Assessment of Health Information on Social Media During a Public Health Crisis: Infodemiology Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Quality of cerebral palsy videos on Chinese social media platforms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An Analysis of the Readability of Public-Facing Information Relating to Prevention of Infectious Diseases by Vaccination.British journal of biomedical science · 2025Article
- Investigation of the quality and health literacy demand of online information on pelvic floor exercises to reduce stress urinary incontinence.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of online text-based information resources of gynaecological cancer symptoms.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Promoting patient engagement in cancer genomics research programs: An environmental scan.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Designing, Developing, Evaluating, and Implementing a Smartphone-Delivered, Rule-Based Conversational Agent (DISCOVER): Development of a Conceptual Framework.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- An evaluation of the quality of online perinatal depression information.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Automatic Diagnosis of Mental Healthcare Information Actionability: Developing Binary Classifiers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Assessing Communicative Effectiveness of Public Health Information in Chinese: Developing Automatic Decision Aids for International Health Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a Digital Health Initiative in Illicit Substance Use: Cross-sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Predicting Writing Styles of Web-Based Materials for Children's Health Education Using the Selection of Semantic Features: Machine Learning Approach.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Getting the timing right: Women's views on the best time to announce changes to cancer screening policy recommendations.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree main changes were implemented in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in December 2017: an increase in the recommended age to start screening, extended screening intervals, and change from the Papanicolaou (Pap) test to primary human papillomavirus screening (cervical screening test). The internet is a readily accessible source of information to explain the reasons for these changes to the public. It is important that web-based health information about changes to national screening programs is accessible and understandable for the general population.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate Australian web-based resources that provide information about the changes to the cervical screening program.
methodsThe term cervical screening was searched in 3 search engines. The first 10 relevant results across the first 3 pages of each search engine were selected. Overall, 2 authors independently evaluated each website for readability (Flesch Reading Ease [FRE], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG] index), quality of information (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT] for printable materials), credibility (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] benchmark criteria and presence of Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct [HONcode] certification), website design, and usability with 5 simulation questions to assess the relevance of information. A descriptive analysis was conducted for the readability measures, PEMAT, and the JAMA benchmark criteria.
resultsOf the 49 websites identified in the search, 15 were eligible for inclusion. The consumer-focused websites were classed as fairly difficult to read (mean FRE score 51.8, SD 13.3). The highest FRE score (easiest to read) was 70.4 (Cancer Council Australia Cervical Screening Consumer Site), and the lowest FRE score (most difficult to read) was 33.0 (NCSP Clinical Guidelines). A total of 9 consumer-focused websites and 4 health care provider-focused websites met the recommended threshold (sixth to eighth grade; SMOG index) for readability. The mean PEMAT understandability scores were 87.7% (SD 6.0%) for consumer-focused websites and 64.9% (SD 13.8%) for health care provider-focused websites. The mean actionability scores were 58.1% (SD 19.1%) for consumer-focused websites and 36.7% (SD 11.0%) for health care provider-focused websites. Moreover, 9 consumer-focused and 3 health care provider-focused websites scored above 70% for understandability, and 2 consumer-focused websites had an actionability score above 70%. A total of 3 websites met all 4 of the JAMA benchmark criteria, and 2 websites displayed the HONcode.
conclusionsIt is important for women to have access to information that is at an appropriate reading level to better understand the implications of the changes to the cervical screening program. These findings can help health care providers direct their patients toward websites that provide information on cervical screening that is written at accessible reading levels and has high understandability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.