Are the Websites of the Dentistry Faculties in Turkey Adequate for Informing Pediatric Patients?

Year 2024, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 276 - 285, 31.08.2024

Semih Ercan Akgün , İrem Okumuş

https://doi.org/10.19127/mbsjohs.1484755

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of information provided by the websites of the Department of Pedodontics in the Dentistry Faculties of State Universities (SU) and Foundation Based Universities (FBU) in Turkey for pediatric patients.
Method: All dentistry faculties in Turkey were identified through the Council of Higher Education database and classified as public and FBU. The websites of the faculties were accessed via the Google search engine, and the information pages of the Department of Pediatric Dentistry prepared for the patients were evaluated according to the Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN), Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and Atesman Readability Formula.
Results: No significant differences were observed among universities in terms of DISCERN scores (p>0.05), except in Section 1 (p=0.041). In Section 1, SU demonstrated higher DISCERN scores than FBU. None of the Faculties of Dentistry had an 'excellent' score. However, no significant differences were identified between universities in relation to Atesman scores (p>0.05), and no significant differences were found between universities on the JAMA benchmark scale (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it was determined that the quality and readability of information on websites prepared by the Faculty of Dentistry in Turkey for parents of pediatric patients are low. It is recommended that information on university websites, which are official institutions that closely follow scientific developments and are preferred by parents of patients for information purposes, should be checked with appropriate evaluation tools in terms of quality and readability.

Keywords

Dentistry faculties websites, information, quality, readability

References

• Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2618-24.
• Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW. Patients' use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):180-5.
• McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1-2):24-8.
• Polgreen PM, Chen Y, Pennock DM, Nelson FD. Using internet searches for influenza surveillance. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(11):1443-8.
• Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: A systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2015;21(3):173-94.
• data.tuik.gov.tr [Internet]. Ankara: Hanehalkı Bilişim Teknolojileri (BT) Kullanım Araştırması; 2022 [cited 2023 May 15]. Available from: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2022-45587
• de Boer MJ, Versteegen GJ, van Wijhe M. Patients' use of the Internet for pain-related medical information. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68(1):86-97.
• Pang PC, Chang S, Verspoor K, Pearce J. Designing Health Websites Based on Users' Web-Based Information-Seeking Behaviors: A Mixed-Method Observational Study. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6):e145.
• R NR, McCreary C. Dental patients' use of the Internet. Br Dent J. 2009;207(12):583-6.
• Aghasiyev R, Yılmaz B. The Accuracy of Information about Orthodontics Available on the Internet. Turk J Orthod. 2018;31(4):127-32.
• YÖK Diş Hekimliği Bulunan Tüm Üniversiteler [Internet]. Available from: https://yokatlas.yok.gov.tr/lisans-bolum.php?b=10049
• Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105-11.
• 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):1244-5.
• Ateşman E. Türkçede okunabilirliğin ölçülmesi. Dil Dergisi. 1997;58:71-4.
• Obilor EI, Amadi EC. Test for significance of Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Int J Inno Maths, Statistics & Energy Policies 2018; 6(1): 11-23.
• Powell J, Clarke A. Internet information-seeking in mental health: population survey. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189:273-7.
• Aldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT. Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid? Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(4):466-9.
• McGoldrick DM, Kielty P, Cotter C. Quality of information about maxillofacial trauma on the Internet. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;55(2):141-4.
• Beaunoyer E, Arsenault M, Lomanowska AM, Guitton MJ. Understanding online health information: Evaluation, tools, and strategies. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(2):183-9.
• Meade CD, Smith CF. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 1991;17(2):153-8.
• Olkun HK, Demirkaya AA. Evaluation of Internet Information about Lingual Orthodontics Using DISCERN and JAMA Tools. Turk J Orthod. 2018;31(2):50-4.