SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anatolian Current Medical Journal / 2026 / Volume: 7 Issue: 5

Evaluating the information quality and readability on Turkish Websites about human papilloma virus

Cem Dağdelen(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-0950-0442
İlyas Turan(BATMAN EĞİTİM VE ARAŞTIRMA HASTANESİ)0000-0003-3611-9428
Özgür Ozan Ceylan(TURGUTLU DEVLET HASTANESİ KADIN DOĞUM, MANİSA)0000-0001-5054-8486
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-09-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Website information resources prepared by obstetrics and gynecology associations should be increased and the readability and quality of other internet health information needs to be improved.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: We aimed to determine the quality and readability levels of the texts that health readers access from websites related to HPV.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: 64 websites related to "human papilloma virus" were evaluated by using the Google search engine, in terms of readability and website information quality.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Website information resources prepared by obstetrics and gynecology associations should be increased and the readability and quality of other internet health information needs to be improved.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Gynecology · health readers · human papilloma virus

Abstract

Aims: We aimed to determine the quality and readability levels of the texts that health readers access from websites related to HPV. Methods: 64 websites related to "human papilloma virus" were evaluated by using the Google search engine, in terms of readability and website information quality. The websites were divided into 6 groups according to their origins. Ateşman and BezirciYılmaz readability formulas were used for readability, DISCERN measurement tool and JAMA criteria were used for website information quality and reliability. The information quality and reliability of the websites were evaluated by an obstetrician and gynecologist and a gynecological oncology surgeon. Results: When the websites were evaluated according to the Ateşman readability formula, the readability score was found to be 57.2 and they were found to be moderately readable. According to the Bezirci-Yılmaz readability formula, the average readability score of all websites was found to be 12.8, that is, a readability at the undergraduate level was determined. When evaluated with the DISCERN tool, the average quality level of all websites was determined as "poor". It was seen that the texts prepared by the obstetrics and gynecology associations and the obstetricians and gynecologists were of higher quality than the other groups. It was observed that the quality of the texts was lower according to the gynecological oncology surgeon. Conclusion: It is noteworthy that the texts prepared by the obstetrics and gynecology associations received higher quality scores than the other groups. Website information resources prepared by obstetrics and gynecology associations should be increased and the readability and quality of other internet health information needs to be improved.

Özet

Aims: We aimed to determine the quality and readability levels of the texts that health readers access from websites related to HPV. Methods: 64 websites related to "human papilloma virus" were evaluated by using the Google search engine, in terms of readability and website information quality. The websites were divided into 6 groups according to their origins. Ateşman and BezirciYılmaz readability formulas were used for readability, DISCERN measurement tool and JAMA criteria were used for website information quality and reliability. The information quality and reliability of the websites were evaluated by an obstetrician and gynecologist and a gynecological oncology surgeon. Results: When the websites were evaluated according to the Ateşman readability formula, the readability score was found to be 57.2 and they were found to be moderately readable. According to the Bezirci-Yılmaz readability formula, the average readability score of all websites was found to be 12.8, that is, a readability at the undergraduate level was determined. When evaluated with the DISCERN tool, the average quality level of all websites was determined as "poor". It was seen that the texts prepared by the obstetrics and gynecology associations and the obstetricians and gynecologists were of higher quality than the other groups. It was observed that the quality of the texts was lower according to the gynecological oncology surgeon. Conclusion: It is noteworthy that the texts prepared by the obstetrics and gynecology associations received higher quality scores than the other groups. Website information resources prepared by obstetrics and gynecology associations should be increased and the readability and quality of other internet health information needs to be improved.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dağdelen, C., Turan, İ., Ceylan, Ö. O. (2025). Evaluating the information quality and readability on Turkish Websites about human papilloma virus. Anatolian Current Medical Journal, Volume: 7 Issue: 5. https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1729371

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Anderson JG, Rainey MR, Eysenbach G. The impact of CyberHealthcare on the physician-patient relationship. J Med Syst. 2003;27(1):67-84. doi: 10.1023/a:1021061229743
  2. Richards B, Colman AW, Hollingsworth RA. The current and future role of the Internet in patient education. Int J Med Inform. 1998;50(1-3): 279-285. doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(98)00083-5
  3. Bayrak A, Koçyiğit M, Aksu HS, Koçyiğit A. Z kuşağının sosyal medya bağımlılığı ve sosyotelist davranış ilişkisi: Konya örneği. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2024;46:115-132. doi:10.31123/akil.1538072
  4. Mansur F, Ciğerci K. Siberkondri ve E-sağlık okuryazarlığı arasındaki ilişki. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2022;11(1):11-21. doi:10.37989/gumussagbil.961457
  5. Fox S. The engaged E-patient population. Pew Internet Am Life Proj. 2008;1-4.
  6. Fahy E, Hardikar R, Fox A, Mackay S. Quality of patient health information on the internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape. Australas Med J. 2014;7(1):24-28. doi:10.4066/AMJ.2014.1900
  7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, Keller J. An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(9):987-1001. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90166-x
  8. Ahmad F, Hudak PL, Bercovitz K, Hollenberg E, Levinson W. Are physicians ready for patients with internet-based health information? J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(3):e22. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.3.e22
  9. Manini I, Montomoli E. Epidemiology and prevention of human papillomavirus. Ann Ig. 2018;30(4 Supple 1):28-32. doi:10.7416/ai.2018.2231
  10. Szymonowicz KA, Chen J. Biological and clinical aspects of HPV-related cancers. Cancer Biol Med. 2020;17(4):864-878. doi:10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0370
  11. Galeshi M, Shirafkan H, Yazdani S. et al. Reproducvtive health needs of women with human papillomavirus (HPV): a systematic review. Research Square. 2022. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1410186/v1
  12. Şahin F, Aydın E, Büyükkaya Öcal EU, Özdemir S, Kasapoğlu AM, Akbayır Ö. Evaluation of colposcopy and LEEP results performed in gynecology and gynecological oncology surgery services. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2024;45(1):116. doi:10.22514/ejgo.2023.071
  13. Atesman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Lang J. 1997; 58(2):171-174.
  14. Bezirci Y, Yılmaz A. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEÜ FMD. 2010;12(3):49-62.
  15. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15): 1244-1245. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
  16. Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, et al. Brief DISCERN, six questions for the evaluation of evidence-based content of health-related websites. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(1):33-37. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.02.016
  17. Som R, Gunawardana NP. Internet chemotherapy information is of good quality: assessment with the DISCERN tool. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(2): 403. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.223
  18. Köhler C, Darmoni SJ, Mayer MA, Roth-Berghofer T, Fiene M, Eysenbach G. MedCIRCLE--the collaboration for internet rating, certification, labelling, and evaluation of health information. Int J Heal Care Eng. 2002;10(6):515. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-939-4-667
  19. Chen YY, Li CM, Liang JC, Tsai CC. Health information obtained from the internet and changes in medical decision making: questionnaire development and cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(2): e47. doi:10.2196/jmir.9370
  20. Wang Y, McKee M, Torbica A, Stuckler D. systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc Sci Med. 2019;240(September):112552. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
  21. Levine DM, Mehrotra A. Assessment of diagnosis and triage in validated case vignettes among nonphysicians before and after internet search. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):1-12. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3287
  22. Maheshwari D, Kunycky C, Jia X, Tangada A, Leung K, Solomon ER. Patient-focused websites related to postpartum pelvic floor health: a DISCERN quality analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022;28(4): 240-243. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001101
  23. Jain M, Chkipov P, Stacey D, Posner G, Bacal V, Chen I. Online patient information for hysterectomies: an environmental scan of readability and quality. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2021;43(5):667. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.061
  24. Sobota A, Ozakinci G. The quality and readability of online consumer information about gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(3): 537-541. doi:10.1097/IGC.0000000000000362
  25. Matthews T, Sewell J. Executive summary: excerpt from CSG’s state official’s guide to health literacy. The Council of State Governments. United States of America. 2002.
  26. Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013; 9(5):503-516. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009
  27. Ay IE, Doğan M. An evaluation of the comprehensibility levels of ophthalmology surgical consent forms. Cureus. 2021;13(7):10-15. doi:10. 7759/cureus.16639
  28. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1310-1315.
  29. Fahimuddin FZ, Sidhu S, Agrawal A. Reading level of online patient education materials from major obstetrics and gynecology societies. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(5):987-993. doi:10.1097/AOG. 0000000000003214
  30. Uzun SB, Sakin Ö, Hüseyin Ç, Şimsek EE. The effects of HPV test on anxiety, emotion and depression in women. J Acad Res Med. 2020;10(2): 149-154. doi:10.4274/jarem.galenos.2020.3106