PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
We aimed to examine the patient education materials (PEMs) on the internet about \"Child Pain\" in terms of readability, reliability, quality and content. For our observational study, a search was made on February 28, 2024, using the keywords \"Child Pain,\" \"Pediatric Pain,\" and \"Children Pain\" in the Google search engine. The readability of PEMs was assessed using computer-based readability formulas (Flesch Reading Ease Score [FRES], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [FKGL], Automated readability index (ARI), Gunning Fog [GFOG], Coleman-Liau score [CL], Linsear Write [LW], Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG]). The reliability and quality of websites were determined using the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) score, Global Quality Score (GQS), and DISCERN score. 96 PEM websites included in our study. We determined that the FRES was 64 (32-84), the FKGL was 8.24 (4.01-15.19), ARI was 8.95 (4.67-17.38), GFOG was 11 (7.1-19.2), CL was 10.1 (6.95-15.64), LW was 8.08 (3.94-19.0) and SMOG was 8.1 (4.98-13.93). The scores of readability formulas showed that, the readability level of PEMs was statistically higher than sixth-grade level with all formulas (P = .011 for FRES, P < .001 for GFOG, P < .001 for ARI, P < .001 for FKGL, P < .001 for CL and P < .001 for SMOG), except LW formula (P = .112). The websites had moderate-to-low reliability and quality. Health-related websites had the highest quality with JAMA score. We found a weak negative correlation between Blexb score and JAMA score (P = .013). Compared to the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health, the readability grade level of child pain-related internet-based PEMs is quite high. On the other hand, the reliability and quality of PEMs were determined as moderate-to-low. The low readability and quality of PEMs could cause an anxious parent and unnecessary hospital admissions. PEMs on issues threatening public health should be prepared with attention to the recommendations on readability.
摘要：
我们旨在从可读性方面检查互联网上有关“儿童疼痛”的患者教育材料（PEM），可靠性,质量和内容。对于我们的观察研究，2024年2月28日进行了搜索，使用关键字“儿童疼痛，\"\"儿科疼痛,Google搜索引擎中的“儿童疼痛”和“儿童疼痛”。使用基于计算机的可读性公式评估PEM的可读性(Flesch阅读轻松评分[FRES]，Flesch-Kincaid等级[FKGL]，自动可读性指数(ARI)，GunningFog[GFOG],Coleman-Liau得分[CL]，LinsearWrite[LW],Gobbledygook[SMOG]的简单度量）。使用美国医学会杂志（JAMA）评分确定网站的可靠性和质量，全球质量评分（GQS），和DISDERN得分。我们的研究中包括96个PEM网站。我们确定FRES为64（32-84），FKGL为8.24（4.01-15.19），ARI为8.95（4.67-17.38），GFOG为11（7.1-19.2），CL为10.1（6.95-15.64），LW为8.08（3.94-19.0），SMOG为8.1（4.98-13.93）。可读性公式的得分表明，在所有公式中，PEM的可读性水平在统计学上高于六年级水平(FRES的P=.011，GFOG的P<.001，ARI的P<.001，FKGL的P<.001，CL的P<.001，SMOG的P<.001)，除了LW公式(P=.112)。这些网站具有中等到较低的可靠性和质量。健康相关网站的质量最高，JAMA评分最高。我们发现Blexb评分和JAMA评分之间存在弱负相关(P=.013)。与美国医学会和美国国立卫生研究院推荐的六年级水平相比，儿童疼痛相关的基于互联网的PEM的可读性等级水平相当高。另一方面,PEM的可靠性和质量被确定为中低。PEM的低可读性和质量可能会导致父母焦虑和不必要的住院。关于威胁公共卫生的问题的PEM应在准备时注意关于可读性的建议。
