# Assessing the Quality and Readability of Online Patient Information for Common Proctological Conditions

## TL;DR

This study found that online patient information for common proctological conditions is of low quality and difficult to read.

## Contribution

The study evaluates quality and readability of online patient information for haemorrhoids, anal fissures, and anal fistulae using standardized tools.

## Key findings

- Average DISCERN score was 2.4 ± 0.8, indicating moderate to low-quality information.
- Only 21% of webpages met all JAMA quality criteria.
- Readability scores suggest the text is suitable for 13- to 16-year-olds.

## Abstract

Background

Haemorrhoids, anal fissures, and anal fistulae are common benign proctological conditions that heavily rely on self-management strategies to prevent morbidity. Online access to various treatment options has empowered patients in this regard. This study was conducted to assess the quality and readability of the available online information.

Methods

An online search using the Google search engine (Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) was carried out with the following terms: ‘Treatment of Haemorrhoids’, ‘Treatment of Anal Fissure’, and ‘Treatment of Anal Fistula’. For each search term, the first 25 webpages developed for patient education were included. Thus, a total of 75 webpages were analysed for their quality using the DISCERN instrument and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks. Their readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG).

Results

Across the three search terms, the average overall DISCERN score was 2.4 ± 0.8 (out of five), suggesting moderate to low-quality information. Only 16 (21%) webpages fulfilled all four JAMA benchmark criteria for quality. An average FRES score of 57.6 ± 9.0 indicated that the text was fairly difficult to read. FKGL and SMOG index levels of 8.0 ± 1.6 and 10.7 ± 1.0, respectively, correspond to the reading age range of 13- to 16-year-olds.

Conclusion

Available online information for patients with common proctological complaints is of suboptimal quality and is fairly difficult to read. It is essential to ensure that the information available meets high-quality standards and is readable by patients.