• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

关于耳鼻咽喉异物的网络信息的质量和可读性评估:定性内容分析

Evaluation of the Quality and Readability of Web-Based Information Regarding Foreign Bodies of the Ear, Nose, and Throat: Qualitative Content Analysis.

作者信息

Ko Tsz Ki, Tan Denise Jia Yun, Fan Ka Siu

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Royal Stoke Hospital, Stoke, United Kingdom.

Department of Surgery, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, United Kingdom.

出版信息

JMIR Form Res. 2024 Aug 15;8:e55535. doi: 10.2196/55535.

DOI:10.2196/55535
PMID:39145998
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11362703/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Foreign body (FB) inhalation, ingestion, and insertion account for 11% of emergency admissions for ear, nose, and throat conditions. Children are disproportionately affected, and urgent intervention may be needed to maintain airway patency and prevent blood vessel occlusion. High-quality, readable online information could help reduce poor outcomes from FBs.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to evaluate the quality and readability of available online health information relating to FBs.

METHODS

In total, 6 search phrases were queried using the Google search engine. For each search term, the first 30 results were captured. Websites in the English language and displaying health information were included. The provider and country of origin were recorded. The modified 36-item Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool was used to assess information quality. Readability was assessed using a combination of tools: Flesch Reading Ease score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook.

RESULTS

After the removal of duplicates, 73 websites were assessed, with the majority originating from the United States (n=46, 63%). Overall, the quality of the content was of moderate quality, with a median Ensuring Quality Information for Patients score of 21 (IQR 18-25, maximum 29) out of a maximum possible score of 36. Precautionary measures were not mentioned on 41% (n=30) of websites and 30% (n=22) did not identify disk batteries as a risky FB. Red flags necessitating urgent care were identified on 95% (n=69) of websites, with 89% (n=65) advising patients to seek medical attention and 38% (n=28) advising on safe FB removal. Readability scores (Flesch Reading Ease score=12.4, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level=6.2, Gunning-Fog Index=6.5, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook=5.9 years) showed most websites (56%) were below the recommended sixth-grade level.

CONCLUSIONS

The current quality and readability of information regarding FBs is inadequate. More than half of the websites were above the recommended sixth-grade reading level, and important information regarding high-risk FBs such as disk batteries and magnets was frequently excluded. Strategies should be developed to improve access to high-quality information that informs patients and parents about risks and when to seek medical help. Strategies to promote high-quality websites in search results also have the potential to improve outcomes.

摘要

背景

异物吸入、摄入和插入占耳鼻喉疾病急诊入院病例的11%。儿童受影响的比例过高,可能需要紧急干预以维持气道通畅并防止血管阻塞。高质量、易读的在线信息有助于减少异物导致的不良后果。

目的

我们旨在评估与异物相关的现有在线健康信息的质量和可读性。

方法

使用谷歌搜索引擎总共查询了6个搜索短语。对于每个搜索词,获取前30个结果。纳入英文且显示健康信息的网站。记录提供者和来源国。使用修改后的36项患者质量信息保障工具评估信息质量。使用多种工具组合评估可读性:弗莱什易读性分数、弗莱什-金凯德年级水平、冈宁-福格指数和晦涩难懂简易度量。

结果

去除重复项后,评估了73个网站,其中大多数来自美国(n = 46,63%)。总体而言,内容质量中等,患者质量信息保障的中位数分数为21(四分位距18 - 25,最高29),满分36分。41%(n = 30)的网站未提及预防措施,30%(n = 22)未将纽扣电池识别为有风险的异物。95%(n = 69)的网站识别出需要紧急护理的警示信号,89%(n = 65)建议患者寻求医疗关注,38%(n = 28)就安全取出异物提供建议。可读性分数(弗莱什易读性分数 = 12.4,弗莱什-金凯德年级水平 = 6.2,冈宁-福格指数 = 6.5,晦涩难懂简易度量 = 5.9年)显示大多数网站(56%)低于推荐的六年级水平。

结论

当前关于异物的信息质量和可读性不足。超过一半的网站高于推荐的六年级阅读水平,并且经常排除有关纽扣电池和磁铁等高风险异物的重要信息。应制定策略,以改善获取高质量信息的途径,使患者和家长了解风险以及何时寻求医疗帮助。在搜索结果中推广高质量网站的策略也有可能改善结局。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a15d/11362703/b51eae1b656d/formative_v8i1e55535_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a15d/11362703/0678fff983d7/formative_v8i1e55535_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a15d/11362703/b51eae1b656d/formative_v8i1e55535_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a15d/11362703/0678fff983d7/formative_v8i1e55535_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a15d/11362703/b51eae1b656d/formative_v8i1e55535_fig2.jpg

相似文献

1
Evaluation of the Quality and Readability of Web-Based Information Regarding Foreign Bodies of the Ear, Nose, and Throat: Qualitative Content Analysis.关于耳鼻咽喉异物的网络信息的质量和可读性评估:定性内容分析
JMIR Form Res. 2024 Aug 15;8:e55535. doi: 10.2196/55535.
2
The Risks Associated With Computed Tomography Scans: An Assessment of the Readability and Reliability of Online Text Available for Patient Information and Guidance.计算机断层扫描相关风险:对可用于患者信息与指导的在线文本的可读性和可靠性评估
Cureus. 2022 Oct 27;14(10):e30758. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30758. eCollection 2022 Oct.
3
The quality, understandability, readability, and popularity of online educational materials for heart murmur.心脏杂音在线教育资料的质量、易懂性、可理解性和普及性。
Cardiol Young. 2020 Mar;30(3):328-336. doi: 10.1017/S104795111900307X. Epub 2019 Dec 26.
4
Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on transcutaneuous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).评估经皮神经电刺激(TENS)在线患者教育材料的可读性、质量和可靠性。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Apr 21;102(16):e33529. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033529.
5
Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations.主要眼科协会在线患者教育材料评估。
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr;133(4):449-54. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.6104.
6
How readable and quality are online patient education materials about Helicobacter pylori?: Assessment of the readability, quality and reliability.关于幽门螺杆菌的在线患者教育材料的可读性和质量如何?:评估可读性、质量和可靠性。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Oct 27;102(43):e35543. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035543.
7
Quality, Reliability, Technical Quality, and Readability of Google Online Information on Childhood Glaucoma.谷歌在线儿童青光眼信息的质量、可靠性、技术质量和可读性。
J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2024 May-Jun;61(3):198-203. doi: 10.3928/01913913-20231114-01. Epub 2023 Dec 19.
8
The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis.基于网络的鼻咽癌患者信息的可读性与质量:定量内容分析
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Nov 27;7:e47762. doi: 10.2196/47762.
9
Quality of Web-Based Sickle Cell Disease Resources for Health Care Transition: Website Content Analysis.用于医疗保健过渡的镰状细胞病网络资源质量:网站内容分析
JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2023 Dec 13;6:e48924. doi: 10.2196/48924.
10
A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Readability of Online Information Regarding Hip Osteoarthritis.关于髋骨关节炎在线信息可读性的横断面分析。
Cureus. 2024 May 18;16(5):e60536. doi: 10.7759/cureus.60536. eCollection 2024 May.

本文引用的文献

1
The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis.基于网络的鼻咽癌患者信息的可读性与质量:定量内容分析
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Nov 27;7:e47762. doi: 10.2196/47762.
2
Analysis of the quality, accuracy, and readability of patient information on polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) on the internet available in English: a cross-sectional study.多囊卵巢综合征(PCOS)相关互联网患者信息的质量、准确性和可读性分析:一项横断面研究。
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2023 May 15;21(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s12958-023-01100-x.
3
Ear, Nose, and Throat Foreign Bodies in the Paediatric Population: Did the COVID-19 Lockdown Change Anything?
儿科人群中的耳鼻咽喉异物:新冠疫情封锁措施有何影响?
Cureus. 2022 Aug 11;14(8):e27892. doi: 10.7759/cureus.27892. eCollection 2022 Aug.
4
A quality assessment of online patient information regarding tonsillitis using the EQIP tool.利用 EQIP 工具对有关扁桃体炎的在线患者信息进行质量评估。
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Aug;159:111224. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111224. Epub 2022 Jun 28.
5
The Quality of Online Information on Cosmetic Injectable Fillers: Current Status.《关于美容注射填充物的在线信息质量:现状》。
Facial Plast Surg. 2022 Apr;38(2):124-130. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1741502. Epub 2022 Feb 3.
6
Readability and Comprehension of Printed Patient Education Materials.患者教育材料的可读性和理解度。
Front Public Health. 2021 Nov 30;9:725840. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.725840. eCollection 2021.
7
A Quality Assessment of Online Patient Information Regarding Rhinoplasty.关于鼻整形术的在线患者信息质量评估。
Facial Plast Surg. 2022 Oct;38(5):530-538. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1735622. Epub 2021 Sep 28.
8
Using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients Tool to Assess Patient Information on Appendicitis Websites: Systematic Search and Evaluation.使用 Ensuring Quality Information for Patients 工具评估阑尾炎网站上的患者信息:系统搜索和评估。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 26;23(3):e22618. doi: 10.2196/22618.
9
COVID-19 prevention and treatment information on the internet: a systematic analysis and quality assessment.互联网上的新型冠状病毒肺炎防治信息:系统分析与质量评估
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 10;10(9):e040487. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040487.
10
Risk Management and Recommendations for the Prevention of Fatal Foreign Body Aspiration: Four Cases Aged 1.5 to 3 Years and Mini-Review of the Literature.风险管理和预防致命性异物吸入的建议:4 例 1.5 至 3 岁儿童病例及文献复习。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 30;17(13):4700. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134700.