CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactSocial Media in Health Education

Health websites on COVID-19: Are they readable and credible enough to help public self-care?

Open access
Valizadeh-Haghi, Saeideh, Khazaal, Yasser, Rahmatizadeh, Shahabedin·2021·Journal of the Medical Library Association
DOI 10.5195/jmla.2021.1020PMC PMC7772974
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: There are concerns about nonscientific and/or unclear information on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that is available on the Internet. Furthermore, people’s ability to understand health information varies and depends on their skills in reading and interpreting information. This study aims to evaluate the readability and creditability of websites with COVID-19-related information.Methods: The search terms “coronavirus,” “COVID,” and “COVID-19” were input into Google. The websites of the first thirty results for each search term were evaluated in terms of their credibility and readability using the Health On the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRE) scales, respectively.Results: The readability of COVID-19-related health information on websites was suitable for high school graduates or college students and, thus, was far above the recommended readability level. Most websites that were examined (87.2%) had not been officially certified by HONcode. There was no significant difference in the readability scores of websites with and without HONcode certification.Conclusion: These results suggest that organizations should improve the readability of their websites and provide information that more people can understand. This could lead to greater health literacy, less health anxiety, and the provision of better preventive information about the disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5195/jmla.2021.1020

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. [4]Heymann DL, Shindo N COVID-19: what is next for public health? Lancet [Internet]. 2020 2 22; 395(10224): 542– 5. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30374-3. PMC7138015 32061313 · DOI
  2. [6]Choudhury SM, Arora T, Alebbi S, Ahmed L, Aden A, Omar O, Taheri S How do Qataris source health information? PLoS One. 2016; 11(11): e0166250 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166250. 27832112 PMC5104325 · DOI
  3. [7]Beck F, Richard JB, Nguyen-Thanh V, Montagni I, Parizot I, Renahy E Use of the Internet as a health information resource among French young adults: results from a nationally representative survey. J Med Internet Res. 2014 5 13; 16(5): e128 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2934. 24824164 PMC4051740 · DOI
  4. [8]Simou E Health information sources: trust and satisfaction. Int J Healthc. 2015; 2(1). DOI: 10.5430/ijh.v2n1p38. · DOI · Paper page
  5. [9]Alduraywish SA, Altamimi LA, Aldhuwayhi RA, AlZamil LR, Alzeghayer LY, Alsaleh FS, Aldakheel FM, Tharkar S Sources of health information and their impacts on medical knowledge perception among the Saudi Arabian population: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2020 3 19; 22(3): e14414 DOI: 10.2196/14414. 32191208 PMC7118549 · DOI
  6. [10]Atkinson NL, Saperstein SL, Pleis J Using the Internet for health-related activities: findings from a national probability sample. J Med Internet Res. 2009 2; 11(1): e4 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1035. 19275980 PMC2762768 · DOI
  7. [11]Hamzehei R, Ansari M, Rahmatizadeh S, Valizadeh-Haghi S Websites as a tool for public health education: determining the trustworthiness of health websites on Ebola disease. Online J Public Health Inform. 2018 12 30; 10(3): e221 DOI: 10.5210/ojphi.v10i3.9544. 30680054 PMC6335090 · DOI
  8. [12]Ansari M, Hamzehei R, Valizadeh-Haghi S Persian language health websites on Ebola disease: less credible than you think? J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2020 12; 95(1): 2 DOI: 10.1186/s42506-019-0027-4. 32813057 PMC7364698 · DOI
  9. [13]Ritchie L, Tornari C, Patel PM, Lakhani R Glue ear: how good is the information on the World Wide Web? J Laryngol Otol. 2016 2; 130(2): 157– 61. DOI: 10.1017/S0022215115003230. 26805389 · DOI
  10. [16]Valizadeh-Haghi S, Rahmatizadeh S Evaluation of the quality and accessibility of available websites on kidney transplantation. Urol J. 2018 9 26; 15(5): 261– 5. DOI: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4252. 30058062 · DOI
  11. [22]Valizadeh-Haghi S, Moghaddasi H, Rabiei R, Asadi F Health websites visual structure: the necessity of developing a comprehensive design guideline. Arch Adv Biosci. 2017 9 26; 8(4): 53– 9. DOI: 10.22037/jps.v8i4.18175. · DOI
  12. [26]Mahase E Coronavirus: COVID-19 has killed more people than SARS and MERS combined, despite lower case fatality rate. BMJ. 2020 2 18; 368: m641 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m641. 32071063 · DOI
  13. [27]Chasiotis A, Wedderhoff O, Rosman T, Mayer AK Why do we want health information? the goals associated with health information seeking (GAINS) questionnaire. Psychol Heal. 2020 3; 35(3): 255– 74. DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2019.1644336. 31340675 · DOI
  14. [28]Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Hoch A, Khankarli MB, Khan R, Zullino DF Internet use by patients with psychiatric disorders in search for general and medical informations. Psychiatr Q. 2008 12; 79(4): 301– 9. DOI: 10.1007/s11126-008-9083-1. 18756354 · DOI
  15. [29]Calvo MG, Carreiras M Selective influence of test anxiety on reading processes. Br J Psychol. 1993 8; 84(pt. 3): 375– 88. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1993.tb02489.x. 8401989 · DOI
  16. [30]Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. J Am Med Assoc. 2001 5 23; 285(20): 2612– 21. DOI: 10.1001/jama.285.20.2612. PMC4182102 11368735 · DOI
  17. [31]National Work Group on Literacy and Health; Weiss BD; University of Texas Health Science Center. Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. J Fam Pract. 1998 2; 46(2): 168– 76. 9487325
  18. [32]Albright J, de Guzman C, Acebo P, Paiva D, Faulkner M, Swanson J Readability of patient education materials: implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res. 1996 8; 9(3): 139– 43. DOI: 10.1016/s0897-1897(96)80254-0. 8771859 · DOI
  19. [34]Cotugna N, Vickery CE, Carpenter-Haefele KM Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Community Health. 2005 6; 30(3): 213– 9. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-004-1959-x. 15847246 · DOI
  20. [35]Raj S, Sharma VL, Singh AJ, Goel S Evaluation of quality and readability of health information websites identified through India's major search engines. Adv Prev Med. 2016: 1– 6. DOI: 10.1155/2016/4815285. PMC4826908 27119025 · DOI
  21. [36]Fahimuddin FZ, Sidhu S, Agrawal A Reading level of online patient education materials from major obstetrics and gynecology societies. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 5; 133(5): 987– 93. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003214. 30969212 · DOI
  22. [37]Eltorai A, Ghanian S, Adams C, Born C, Daniels A Readability of patient education materials on the American Association for Surgery of Trauma website. Arch Trauma Res. 2014 4 30; 3(1): e18161 DOI: 10.5812/atr.18161. 25147778 PMC4139691 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [38]Manchaiah V, Dockens AL, Flagge A, Bellon-Harn M, Azios JH, Kelly-Campbell RJ, Andersson G Quality and readability of English-language Internet information for tinnitus. J Am Acad Audiol. 2019 1; 30(1): 31– 40. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17070. 30461391 · DOI
  24. [39]Vives M, Young L, Sabharwal S Readability of spine-related patient education materials from subspecialty organization and spine practitioner websites. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 12 1; 34(25): 2826– 31. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b4bb0c. 19910867 · DOI
  25. [40]Helitzer D, Hollis C, Cotner J, Oestreicher N Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control. 2009 1; 16(1): 70– 8. DOI: 10.1177/107327480901600111. 19078933 · DOI
  26. [41]Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S Readability of patient education materials from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America web sites. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 1; 90(1): 199– 204. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00347. 18171975 · DOI
  27. [46]Rayess H, Zuliani GF, Gupta A, Svider PF, Folbe AJ, Eloy JA, Carron MA Critical analysis of the quality, readability, and technical aspects of online information provided for neck-lifts. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2017 3 1; 19(2): 115– 20. DOI: 10.1001/jamafacial.2016.1219. 27812680 · DOI
  28. [47]Varela-Centelles P, Ledesma-Ludi Y, Seoane-Romero JM, Seoane J Information about oral cancer on the Internet: our patients cannot understand it. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 4; 53(4): 393– 5. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.01.020. 25703184 · DOI
  29. [48]Hadden K, Prince LY, Schnaekel A, Couch CG, Stephenson JM, Wyrick TO Readability of patient education materials in hand surgery and health literacy best practices for improvement. J Hand Surg Am. 2016 8 1; 41(8): 825– 32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.05.006. 27291416 · DOI
  30. [49]Royal KD, Erdmann KM Evaluating the readability levels of medical infographic materials for public consumption. J Vis Commun Med. 2018 7 3; 41(3): 99– 102. DOI: 10.1080/17453054.2018.1476059. 29987964 · DOI
  31. [50]Alamoudi U, Hong P Readability and quality assessment of websites related to microtia and aural atresia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 2; 79(2): 151– 6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.11.027. 25554575 · DOI
  32. [51]Brigo F, Otte WM, Igwe SC, Tezzon F, Nardone R Clearly written, easily comprehended? the readability of websites providing information on epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2015 3 1; 44: 35– 9. DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.12.029. 25601720 · DOI
  33. [52]Grewal P, Alagaratnam S The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the Internet. Int J Surg. 2013; 11(5): 410– 3. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.03.006. 23523948 · DOI
  34. [53]Chi E, Jabbour N, Aaronson NL Quality and readability of websites for patient information on tonsillectomy and sleep apnea. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 7; 98: 1– 3. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.04.031. 28583484 · DOI
  35. [54]MedlinePlus. Choice rev online National Library of Medicine; 2006 8 1; 43(12): 43Sup-0363.
  36. [56]Maskell K, McDonald P, Paudyal P Effectiveness of health education materials in general practice waiting rooms: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract. 2018 12; 68(677): e869– 76. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X699773. 30348885 PMC6255223 · DOI
  37. [57]Cherrez-Ojeda I, Felix M, Mata VL, Vanegas E, Gavilanes AWD, Chedraui P, Simancas-Racines D, Calderon JC, Ortiz F, Blum G, Plua A, Gonzalez G, Moscoso G, Morquecho W Preferences of ICT among patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis: an Ecuadorian cross-sectional study. Healthc Inform Res. 2018 10; 24(4): 292– 9. DOI: 10.4258/hir.2018.24.4.292. 30443417 PMC6230525 · DOI
  38. [58]Ng MK, Mont MA, Piuzzi NS Analysis of readability, quality, and content of online information available for “stem cell” injections for knee osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2020 3; 35(3): 647– 51.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.013. 31678019 · DOI
  39. [59]Perruzza D, Jolliffe C, Butti A, McCaffrey C, Kung R, Gagnon L, Lee P Quality and reliability of publicly accessible information on laser treatments for urinary incontinence: what is available to our patients? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. Nov-Dec 2020; 27(7): 1524– 30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.01.001. 31927043 · DOI
  40. [60]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 4 16; 277(15): 1244– 5. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039. 9103351 · DOI
  41. [61]Charnock D The DISCERN handbook: quality criteria for consumer health information on treatment choices Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Radcliffe Medical Press; 1998.
  42. [64]Señor IC, Fernández-Alemán JL, Toval A Are personal health records safe? a review of free web-accessible personal health record privacy policies. J Med Internet Res. 2012 8 23; 14(4): e114 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1904. 22917868 PMC3510685 · DOI
  43. [65]Saraswat I, Abouassaly R, Dwyer P, Bolton DM, Lawrentschuk N Female urinary incontinence health information quality on the Internet: a multilingual evaluation. Int Urogynecol J. 2016 1; 27(1): 69– 76. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2742-5. 26353845 · DOI
  44. [66]Khazaal Y, Fernandez S, Cochand S, Reboh I, Zullino D Quality of web-based information on social phobia: a cross-sectional study. Depress Anxiety. 2008; 25(5): 461– 5. DOI: 10.1002/da.20381. 17960640 · DOI
  45. [67]Grohol JM, Slimowicz J, Granda R The quality of mental health information commonly searched for on the Internet. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2014 4; 17(4): 216– 21. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0258. 24237287 · DOI
  46. [68]Quesenberry AC Plain language for patient education. J Consum Health Internet. 2017 4 3; 21(2): 209– 15. DOI: 10.1080/15398285.2017.1311611. · DOI
  47. [69]Drake BF, Brown KM, Gehlert S, Wolf LE, Seo J, Perkins H, Goodman MS, Kaphingst KA Development of plain language supplemental materials for the Biobank informed consent process. J Cancer Educ. 2017 12; 32(4): 836– 44. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-016-1029-y. 27037699 PMC5047847 · DOI
  48. [71]Martinez S Consumer literacy and the readability of health education materials. Perspect Commun Disord Sci Cult Linguist Divers Popul. 2011; 18(1): 20– 6. DOI: 10.1044/cds18.1.20. · DOI
  49. [72]Castro-Sánchez E, Spanoudakis E, Holmes AH Readability of Ebola information on websites of public health agencies, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Europe. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 7; 21(7): 1217– 9. DOI: 10.3201/eid2107.141829. 26079313 PMC4480387 · DOI
  50. [73]Mcinnes N, Haglund BJAA Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011 12 18; 36(4): 173– 89. DOI: 10.3109/17538157.2010.542529. 21332302 · DOI
  51. [74]van Deursen AJAM, van Dijk JAGM Using the Internet: skill related problems in users' online behavior. Interact Comput. 2009 12; 21(5–6): 393– 402. DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2009.06.005. · DOI · Paper page
  52. [75]Zuchowski KA, Sanders AE Readability and implications for health literacy: a look at online patient-oriented disease information by Alzheimer's disease research centers. Alzheimer's Dement. 2018 7 1; 14(7): P1380 DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2018.06.2011. · DOI
  53. [77]Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Zullino D Quality of web-based information on cocaine addiction. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 8; 72(2): 336– 41. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.002. 18423952 · DOI
  54. [78]Ostry A, Young ML, Hughes M The quality of nutritional information available on popular websites: a content analysis. Health Educ Res. 2008; 23(4): 648– 55. DOI: 10.1093/her/cym050. 17897928 · DOI
  55. [79]Yi YJ, Stvilia B, Mon L Cultural influences on seeking quality health information: an exploratory study of the Korean community. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2012 1; 34(1): 45– 51. DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2011.06.001. · DOI
  56. [80]Koo K, Yap RL How readable is BPH treatment information on the Internet? assessing barriers to literacy in prostate health. Am J Mens Health. 2017 3; 11(2): 300– 7. DOI: 10.1177/1557988316680935. 27903952 PMC5675298 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Valizadeh-Haghi, S., Khazaal, Y., & Rahmatizadeh, S.
Affiliations
  • Shahid Beheshti University (IR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
Corresponding author
Rahmatizadeh, Shahabedin
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Publisher
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
Published
2021-01-07
Volume
109
Issue
1
Pages
75-83
ISSN
  • 1536-5050 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9439
DOI
10.5195/jmla.2021.1020
PMC
PMC7772974
OpenAlex
W3119532874
Cited by
49
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 10
FWCI
11.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, health websites, readability, website credibility, HONcode, health literacy, self-care, online health information, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, smog, Flesch Reading Ease, health anxiety
MeSH terms
Data Accuracy, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Self Care, Databases, Factual, Internet, Comprehension, Consumer Health Information, Health Literacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review