ArticleAdvances in health information science and practice2026
Evaluating the Readability, Accessibility, and Quality of Online Health Information on Opioid Use Disorder: A Comparative Analysis of Government and Non-Government Websites.
Article in Advances in health information science and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Readability of Patient-Facing Information in Public Reporting System: Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the City of Helsinki Website.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Article
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: The opioid crisis in the US remains a critical public health issue. Accessible, high-quality online health information is vital for educating the public about opioid use disorder (OUD) and available treatment options. This study aims to evaluate and compare the readability, accessibility, and quality of OUD-related information on government and non-government websites to identify areas for improvement. Methods: A total of 30 websites, 21 government-operated and 9 non-governmental, were selected through a systematic search. Readability was assessed using Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) tests. Accessibility was evaluated using the WAVE tool, which checks for errors and adherence to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Quality was measured using the DISCERN Instrument, a standardized tool for evaluating the quality of health information. Data were analyzed for statistical differences between government and non-government websites. Results: The average readability grade level across all websites was 14.63 and average FRES score was 31.63, indicating content requiring advanced reading skills, with no significant difference between government and non-government websites. Accessibility issues were more prevalent on non-government websites. Government websites scored significantly lower in terms of quality, with 80.95% of them rated as "poor" or "very poor" compared with 22.22% of non-government websites. The overall quality scores for both groups remained suboptimal, with an average DISCERN score of 39.52 out of 80. Conclusions: The findings highlight a critical need for improvements in the readability, accessibility, and quality of online health information on OUD. Government websites, in particular, require enhancements to ensure they meet the public's need for reliable, accessible, and comprehensible health resources.
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.