# An Evaluation of the Content Quality, Readability, and Reliability of Publicly Available Web-Based Information on Pneumothorax Surgery in Ireland

## TL;DR

This study finds that most online information about pneumothorax surgery is hard to read and lacks essential details, making it difficult for patients to make informed decisions.

## Contribution

The study introduces a novel content evaluation questionnaire and evaluates online pneumothorax surgery resources for the first time.

## Key findings

- Most websites exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level for public health materials.
- Over 30% of websites omitted side effects and alternative treatments for pneumothorax surgery.
- Only nine websites met all four reliability criteria assessed by the JAMA benchmark.

## Abstract

Introduction

The internet is increasingly the first port of call for patients introduced to new treatments. Unfortunately, many websites are of poor quality, thereby limiting patients’ ability to make informed health decisions. Within thoracic surgery, the treatment options for pneumothoraces may be less intuitive for patients to understand compared to procedures such as lobectomies and wedge resections. Therefore, patients must receive high-quality information to make informed treatment decisions. No study to date has evaluated online information regarding pneumothorax surgery. Knowledge regarding the same may allow physicians to recommend appropriate websites to patients and supplement remaining knowledge gaps.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the content, readability, and reliability of online information regarding pneumothorax surgery.

Methods

A total of 11 search terms including "pneumothorax surgery," "pleurectomy," and "pleurodesis" were each entered into Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The top 20 websites found through each search were screened, yielding 660 websites.

Only free websites designed for patient consumption that provided information on pneumothorax surgery were included. This criterion excluded 581 websites, leaving 79 websites to be evaluated.

To evaluate website reliability, the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) and DISCERN benchmark criteria were applied. To evaluate the readability, 10 standardized tools were utilized including the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score. To evaluate website content, a novel, self-designed 10-part questionnaire was utilized to assess whether information deemed essential by the authors was included. It evaluated whether websites comprehensively described the surgery process for patients, including pre- and post-operative care. Website authorship and year of publication were also noted.

Results

The mean JAMA score was 1.69 ± 1.29 out of 4, with only nine websites achieving all four reliability criteria. The median readability score was 13.42 (IQR: 11.48-16.23), which corresponded to a 13th-14th school grade standard. Only four websites were written at a sixth-grade reading level. In the novel content questionnaire, 31.6% of websites (n = 25) did not mention any side effects of pneumothorax surgery. Similarly, 39.2% (n = 31) did not mention alternative treatment options. There was no correlation between the date of website update and JAMA (r = 0.158, p = 0.123), DISCERN (r = 0.098, p = 0.341), or readability (r = 0.053, p = 0.606) scores.

Conclusion

Most websites were written above the sixth-grade reading level, as recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Furthermore, the exclusion of essential information regarding pneumothorax surgery from websites highlights the current gaps in online information. These findings emphasize the need to create and disseminate comprehensive, reliable websites on pneumothorax surgery that enable patients to make informed health decisions.