Öz
Introduction: The Google search engine
is a widely used resource for accessing health-related patient education texts.
Therefore accessible information in the texts should be accurate, up-to-date
and appropriate to the general public health literacy level. In this research,
we aimed to analyze the readability of patient education texts prepared for
breast cancer presented on internet and to evaluate the content of texts.
Methods:A total of 200 web sites
at Google search engine were evaluated using the terms “breast cancer and breast mass”. The average
readability level was analyzed using Ateşman and Bezirci-Yilmaz readability formulas.
The texts were also evaluated in terms of the risk factors identified in the
development of breast cancer, the presence of examination and screening methods
that could be used in early diagnosis.
Results:A total 64 internet sites
that are in compliance with the research criteria were evaluated. The overall
mean reading level of the texts was found moderate, using the Ateşman formula
and college level according to Bezirci. 18 Web sites had both the risk factors
identified in the development of breast cancer and the methods of screenings.
Conclusions: A
total 64 internet sites that are in compliance with the research criteria were
evaluated. The overall mean reading level of the texts was found moderate,
using the Ateşman formula and college level according to Bezirci. 18 Web sites
had both the risk factors identified in the development of breast cancer and
the methods of screenings.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 1. Turkey Statistical Institute. [Research on the use of information technologies in households] (in Turkish). Available at: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/HbPrint.do?id=18660 (Access Date: March 18, 2019)
- 2. Pew Internet & American Life Project. [Vital decisions: how internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick]. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/05/22/vital-decisions-a-pew-internet-health-report/ (Access Date: March 18, 2019)
- 3. World Health Statistics 2008. Available at: www.who.int/whosis/whostata (Access Date: March 18, 2019)
- 4. Ozmen V. Breast cancer in Turkey and in the world. J Breast Health. 2008;4(2):6-12.
- 5. Goldbort R. Readable writing by scientists and researchers. J Environ Health. 2001;63(8):40-2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11381867
- 6. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav. 2006;33(3):352-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1090198105277329
- 7. Yesilyurt ME, Karadeniz O, Gulel FE, Caglar A, Uyar SG. Mean and expected years of schooling for provinces in Turkey. PJESS 2016;3(1):1-7
- 8. Eysenbach G, Kohler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 2002;324(7337):573-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573
- 9. Atesman E. [Measuring readability in Turkish] (in Turkish). Lang J 1997;58:171-174.
- 10. Bezirci B, Yilmaz AE. A software library for measurement of readability of textsand a new readability metric for Turkish. J Sci Eng 2010;12(3):49-62.
- 11. Flesch R. A new readability yard stick. J Appl Phycol 1948;32(3):221-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0057532
- 12. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2015-2016. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society; 2015. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2015-2016.pdf (Access Date: March 18, 2019)
- 13. Huang GJ, Penson DF. Internet health resources and the cancer patient. Cancer Invest. 2008;26(2):202-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/07357900701566197
- 14. Mancuso JM. Health literacy: a concept/dimensional analysis. Nurs Health Sci 2008;10(3):248-55. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2008.00394.x
- 15. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Readability of cancer information on the internet. J Cancer Educ 2004:19(2):117-22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430154jce1902_13
- 16. Golbasi Z, Cetin R, Kalkan S, Durmus T. The knowledge and behaviors of female university students about breast cancer and breast self-examination. Eur J Breast Health 2010;6(2):69-73.
- 17. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, Wang WW, Allison CJ, Chen FL, et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(19):1445-57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12359854
- 18. Kosters JP, Gøtzsche PC. Regular self-examination or clinical examination for early detection of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(2):CD003373. https://doi.org//10.1002/14651858.CD003373
- 19. Ozmen V, Nilufer OA, Cabioglu N, Gulluoglu BM, Unalan PC, Gorpe S, et al. Survey on a mammographic screening program in Istanbul, Turkey. Breast J 2011;17(3):260-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01065.x
- 20. Ozmen T, Yuce S, Guler T, Ulun C, Ozaydin N, Pruthi S, et al. The screening of breast cancer awareness and health behaviors of women age 40 to 69 in Mus, the least developed city in Turkey: A population based, cross-sectional study. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:15_suppl, e12569-e12569. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e12569
- 21. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health related Websites. J Med Internet Res 2002;4(3):e15. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4.3.e15
İnternet ortamındaki meme kanseri ile ilgili hasta eğitim materyallerinin okunabilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi
Öz
Giriş: Google arama motoru, sağlıkla ilgili hasta eğitim bilgilerine
erişmek için yaygın olarak kullanılan bir kaynaktır. Bu nedenle erişilebilir
bilgilerin doğru, güncel ve genel toplum sağlık okuryazarlık düzeyine uygun
olması önemlidir. Bu araştırmada
internet ortamında sunulan meme kanseri ile ilgili hasta bilgilendirme
metinlerinin okunabilirlik analizinin ve bu sitelerde yer alan metinlerin
içerik değerlendirilmesinin yapılması amaçlandı.
Yöntem: “Google” arama motorunda; meme kanseri ve memede kitle
anahtar kelimeleri ile arama yapılarak toplam 200 internet sitesi
değerlendirildi. On cümleden az bilgi içeren, sohbet, forum, ticari blog
sitelerdeki metinler çalışma dışı bırakıldı. Metinler; hazırlayan uzmanlık
dalına göre; genel cerrahi ve genel cerrahi dışı olarak iki gruba ayrıldı.
Metinlerin okunabilirlik düzeyleri, Ateşman ve Bezirci-Yılmaz formülleri
kullanılarak hesaplandı. Metinler ayrıca meme kanseri gelişiminde tanımlanmış
olan risk faktörleri, erken teşhiste kullanılabilecek muayene ve tarama yöntemi
varlığı açısından da değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Toplam 64 internet sitesinde yer alan hasta
bilgilendirme metni araştırma kriterlerine uygun bulunarak değerlendirmeye
alındı. Metinlerin okunabilirlik ortalaması; Ateşman’a göre orta güçlükte,
Bezirci-Yılmaz’a göre 11. sınıf düzeyinde olup 2 grup arasında anlamlı bir fark
yoktu. İçerik değerlendirmesinde iki grup benzer olmakla birlikte; sadece 18
sitede hem meme kanseri gelişiminde tanımlanan risk faktörleri hem de tarama
yöntemleri mevcuttu.
Sonuç: Mevcut
internet sitelerindeki meme kanseri hasta bilgilendirme metinlerinin
okunabilirlik düzeyinin orta güçlükte olduğu tespit edildi. Metinlerden ancak
dörtte birinin içerik yönünden yeterli olduğu bulundu. İnternet ortamında
erişilen meme kanseri içerikli hasta bilgilendirme sitelerinin toplum sağlık
okuryazarlık düzeyine uygun olarak yeniden hazırlanması ile erken kanser
teşhisinde katkısı olabileceği kanaatindeyiz.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 1. Turkey Statistical Institute. [Research on the use of information technologies in households] (in Turkish). Available at: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/HbPrint.do?id=18660 (Access Date: March 18, 2019)
- 2. Pew Internet & American Life Project. [Vital decisions: how internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick]. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/05/22/vital-decisions-a-pew-internet-health-report/ (Access Date: March 18, 2019)
- 3. World Health Statistics 2008. Available at: www.who.int/whosis/whostata (Access Date: March 18, 2019)
- 4. Ozmen V. Breast cancer in Turkey and in the world. J Breast Health. 2008;4(2):6-12.
- 5. Goldbort R. Readable writing by scientists and researchers. J Environ Health. 2001;63(8):40-2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11381867
- 6. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav. 2006;33(3):352-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1090198105277329
- 7. Yesilyurt ME, Karadeniz O, Gulel FE, Caglar A, Uyar SG. Mean and expected years of schooling for provinces in Turkey. PJESS 2016;3(1):1-7
- 8. Eysenbach G, Kohler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 2002;324(7337):573-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573
- 9. Atesman E. [Measuring readability in Turkish] (in Turkish). Lang J 1997;58:171-174.
- 10. Bezirci B, Yilmaz AE. A software library for measurement of readability of textsand a new readability metric for Turkish. J Sci Eng 2010;12(3):49-62.
- 11. Flesch R. A new readability yard stick. J Appl Phycol 1948;32(3):221-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0057532
- 12. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2015-2016. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society; 2015. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2015-2016.pdf (Access Date: March 18, 2019)
- 13. Huang GJ, Penson DF. Internet health resources and the cancer patient. Cancer Invest. 2008;26(2):202-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/07357900701566197
- 14. Mancuso JM. Health literacy: a concept/dimensional analysis. Nurs Health Sci 2008;10(3):248-55. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2008.00394.x
- 15. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Readability of cancer information on the internet. J Cancer Educ 2004:19(2):117-22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430154jce1902_13
- 16. Golbasi Z, Cetin R, Kalkan S, Durmus T. The knowledge and behaviors of female university students about breast cancer and breast self-examination. Eur J Breast Health 2010;6(2):69-73.
- 17. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, Wang WW, Allison CJ, Chen FL, et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(19):1445-57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12359854
- 18. Kosters JP, Gøtzsche PC. Regular self-examination or clinical examination for early detection of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(2):CD003373. https://doi.org//10.1002/14651858.CD003373
- 19. Ozmen V, Nilufer OA, Cabioglu N, Gulluoglu BM, Unalan PC, Gorpe S, et al. Survey on a mammographic screening program in Istanbul, Turkey. Breast J 2011;17(3):260-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01065.x
- 20. Ozmen T, Yuce S, Guler T, Ulun C, Ozaydin N, Pruthi S, et al. The screening of breast cancer awareness and health behaviors of women age 40 to 69 in Mus, the least developed city in Turkey: A population based, cross-sectional study. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:15_suppl, e12569-e12569. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e12569
- 21. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health related Websites. J Med Internet Res 2002;4(3):e15. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4.3.e15
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi |
| Bölüm | Araştırma Makalesi (Original Article) |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 18 Mart 2019 |
| Gönderilme Tarihi | 8 Kasım 2018 |
| Kabul Tarihi | 27 Şubat 2019 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2019Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1 |
