Tinnitus information online – does it ring true?

Richard McKearney, Robert MacKinnon, Mark Smith, Richard Baker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

34 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective. To assess, using standardised tools, the quality and readability of online tinnitus information that patients are likely to access.
Methods. A standardised review was conducted of websites relating to tinnitus and its management. Each website was scored using the DISCERN instrument and the Flesch Reading Ease scale.
Results. Twenty-seven unique websites were evaluated. The mean DISCERN score of the websites was 34.5 out of 80 (standard deviation = 11.2). This would be considered ‘fair’ in quality. Variability in DISCERN score between websites was high (range, 15–57: ‘poor’ to ‘very good’). Website readability was poor, with a mean Flesch Reading Ease score of 52.6 (standard deviation
= 7.7); this would be considered ‘difficult’ to read.
Conclusion. In general, the quality of tinnitus websites is fair and the readability is poor, with substantial variability in quality between websites. The Action on Hearing Loss and the British Tinnitus Association websites were identified as providing the highest quality information.
Original languageEnglish
JournalThe Journal of laryngology and otology
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Oct 2018

Keywords

  • Internet
  • Tinnitus
  • health literacy
  • Information Dissemination

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Tinnitus information online – does it ring true?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this