ArticleCureus2024
Readability of Online Information for Parents Concerning Paediatric In-Toeing: An Analysis of the Most Popular Online Public Sources.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Parents often access online resources to educate themselves on their child's condition. In-toeing, also referred to as pigeon toeing, is a common paediatric condition that has a variety of causes and is often a cause of concern for parents. With the increasing usage of the internet, parents of children with this condition may look to the web for answers. However, to be understood by the average adult, online health information must be written at an elementary school reading level. We hypothesised that currently available online resources regarding in-toeing would score poorly on objective measures of readability and understandability. Methods Patient education materials were identified via three commonly used online search engines (Google.com, Yahoo.com, and Bing.com). The terms "intoeing" and "pigeon toeing" were used for the search. From the top 50 search results, websites were included if directed at educating patients and their families regarding in-toeing. News articles, non-text material (video), industry websites, and articles not related to in-toeing were excluded. The readability was analysed using a specialised website www.readable.com to produce the following three scores: Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG). Understandability was calculated using the 19-point Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Results After removing duplicates, 84 unique websites were assessed for inclusion. A total of 48 websites and articles (57.14%) met the inclusion criteria. Of note, 23 articles out of 84 (27.38%) were excluded as they were intended for healthcare professionals. The means for the FRE, FKG, and GFI were 57.92 (±12.26), 7.92 (±1.91), and 9.35 (±2.36), respectively. Less than half of online resources had an FRE score at or higher than the recommended reading level for the general population. Mean understandability scores were 69.63% (±11.55%), with only 45.83% of articles being greater than the 70% requirement of adequate understandability. Conclusion Overall, online in-toeing educational materials scored poorly with respect to readability and understandability. Given the popularity of online resources in patient education, we should seek to improve this situation. Articles that are easier to read are thus more accessible to the general public and will aid in the shared decision-making process. Improved patient and parent satisfaction and overall standard of care can be expected.
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.