ArticleBritish journal of pain2023
Readability of online health information pertaining to migraine and headache in the UK.
Article in British journal of pain, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An estimated 46% of the worldwide adult population live with an active headache disorder, and it is thought that there is a proportion of headache and migraine sufferers who do not attend for medical care, instead choosing to manage their symptoms at home. The internet continues to act as a source of online health information for self-management, however, it is important that this information can be understood by the user. Research indicates that most health information online is written at a level too difficult for much of the UK population to understand. The aim of this study was to investigate the readability of online health information pertaining to headache and migraine for a UK-based internet user accessing the top four search engines. Searches for 'headache' and 'migraine' were performed on each search engine and results from the first page were selected for analysis. Five validated readability tests were used to analyse readability; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index. We found that the majority of online health information about migraine and headache is too difficult for the UK adult population to read. Findings highlight work is required to ensure that information from a wider variety of sources is easier to comprehend for much of the population in order for individuals to make informed decisions about health seeking and self-management of headache and migraine. Health information providers should weave readability analysis into their content design process, incorporating shorter sentences and simpler words in their description of conditions and treatment.
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.