Kanser Ağrısı: İnternetteki Bilgilendirme Metinlerinin Okunabilirlik, İçerik ve Kalite Açısından Analizi

Year 2021, Volume: 15 Issue: 3, 561 - 567, 10.09.2021

Selin Balta

https://doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.841629

Abstract

Giriş: Kanser hastalarının %39,3-66,4'ünde ağrı gelişmektedir. Kanser ağrısı yaşam kalitesini kötüleştirmekte ve duygudurum bozukluklarına neden olmaktadır. Hastanın sağlık bilgisine erişimi ile bu alanlardaki sorunların iyileştiği gösterilmiştir. Kanser hastalarının % 79'unun interneti sağlık bilgilerine erişmek için kullandıkları ve internetin hastaların tedavileri hakkında bilinçli kararlar vermelerinde yardımcı olduğu gösterilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkçe internet sitelerinde kanser ağrısına ilişkin hasta bilgi metinlerinin okunabilirlik düzeylerini, içeriklerini ve kalitesini değerlendirmektir. Yöntem: Metinler okunabilirlik hesaplama motoruna aktarılıp sonuçları Ateşman ve Bezirci-Yılmaz formüllerine göre elde edilmiştir. Web sitelerindeki hasta bilgilendirme metinlerinin içeriği yazar tarafından değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca metinler DISCERN aracı ile kalite açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Ateşman formülünün ortalama değeri 47.74 ± 10.39 idi ve okunması zor ile uyumlu idi. Bezirci-Yımaz formülü 13.28 ± 3.53 idi ve lisans derecesi ile uyumluydu. Toplam DISCERN skorunun ortalama değeri 29,13 ± 6,26 idi. Sonuç: Kanser ağrısı ile ilgili Türkçe sağlık bilgilendirme makaleleri toplumumuzun eğitim düzeyine uygun değildir. İçerik açısından ise yetersizdir ve düşük kalitede bulunmuştur. Bu haliyle kanser ağrılı hastaların ihtiyaçlarınının karşılanması mümkün görünmemektedir. Hasta ve hekim arasındaki ilişki, sağlık bilgi metinlerinin internetteki okunabilirliğini geliştirerek, içeriğinin yeterli ve güvenilir olmasını sağlayarak iyileştirebilir. Bu şekilde hem tedavinin başarısı arttırılabilir hem de tedavisiz kalmanın sonuçları en aza indirilebilir.

Keywords

kanser ağrısı, internet, kalite, okunabilirlik, sağlık bilgisi

Cancer Pain: An Analysis of the Quality, Content and Readability of Information on the Internet”

Abstract

Background: Pain develops in 39.3%–66.4% of cancer patients. Cancer pain decreases the patient’s quality of life and causes mood disorders; however, the patient’s access to healthcare information may improve these problems. It has been shown that 79% of cancer patients use the internet to access health information. The internet helps patients in making informed decisions concerning their treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the readability levels, content, and quality of patient information texts on Turkish websites regarding cancer pain. Methods: The texts were transferred to the readability calculation engine and the results were obtained according to the Ateşman and Bezirci-Yılmaz formulas. The content of the patient information texts on the websites was evaluated by the author. The texts were also evaluated in terms of quality by the DISCERN tool. Results: The mean value of the Ateşman formula was 47.74 ± 10.39 and compatible with being difficult to read. The result of the Bezirci-Yılmaz formula was 13.28 ± 3.53 and compatible with a license degree. The mean value of the total DISCERN score was 29.13 ± 6.26. Conclusion: Turkish healthcare information articles about cancer pain on the internet were not suitable for the education level of our society. The articles were insufficient in terms of content and comply with having a poor quality. Therefore, they could not meet the needs of the patients. A better relationship between the patient and physician may be achieved by improving the readability of health information texts on the internet and ensuring that its content is sufficient and reliable. In this manner, the success of the treatment may be improved and the results of any undertreatment may be minimized.

Keywords

health information, internet, quality, readability, cancer pain

References

• 1. Van den Beuken-van Everdingen MH, Hochstenbach LM, Joosten EA, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Janssen DJ. Update on Prevalence of Pain in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2016;51(6):1070-1090.
• 2. Immanuel A, Hunt J, McCarthy H, van Teijlingen E, Sheppard ZA. Quality of life in survivors of adult hematological malignancy. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2019;28(4):13067.
• 3. Donovan K.A., Thompson L.M.A., Jacobsen P.B. Pain, Depression, and Anxiety in Cancer. In: Moore R.J, editor. Handbook of Pain and Palliative Care. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 615-637.
• 4. Kugbey N, Meyer-Weitz A, Oppong Asante K. Access to health information, health literacy and health-related quality of life among women living with breast cancer: Depression and anxiety as mediators Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(7):1357-1363.
• 5. Lee K, Hoti K, Hughes JD, Emmerton LM. Consumer Use of "Dr Google": A Survey on Health Information-Seeking Behaviors and Navigational Needs. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(12): 288.
• 6. Blanch-Hartigan D, Viswanath K. Socioeconomic and sociodemographic predictors of cancer-related information sources used by cancer survivors. J Health Commun 2015;20(2):204-210.
• 7. Bass SB, Ruzek SB, Gordon TF, Fleisher L, McKeown-Conn N, Moore D. Relationship of Internet health information use with patient behavior and self-efficacy: experiences of newly diagnosed cancer patients who contact the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service. J Health Commun 2006;11(2):219-236.
• 8. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. JAMA 1992;267(16):2221–2226.
• 9. Bersellini E, Berry D. The benefits of providing benefit information: Examining the effectiveness of provision of simple benefit statements on people's judgements about a medicine. 2007; Psychology & Health 22(1): 61-82.
• 10. Beaunoyer E, Arsenault M, Lomanowska AM, Guitton MJ. Understanding online health information: Evaluation, tools, and strategies. Patient Educ Couns 2017;100(2):183-189.
• 11. Ateşman, E. Türkçede Okunabilirliğin Ölçülmesi. Dil Dergisi 1997; 58, 71–74.
• 12. American Pain Society Cancer Pain [Internet]. Available from: 13. https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/physical-side-effects/pain.html
• 13. 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):105-111.
• 14. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Eğitim İstatistikleri [Internet]. Available from: http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1018
• 15. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Readability of cancer information on the internet. J Cancer Educ 2004;19(2):117-122.
• 16. Schreuders EH, Grobbee EJ, Kuipers EJ, Spaander MC, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ. Variable Quality and Readability of Patient-oriented Websites on Colorectal Cancer Screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15(1):79-85.
• 17. Alsaiari A, Joury A, Aljuaid M, Wazzan M, Pines JM. The Content and Quality of Health Information on the Internet for Patients and Families on Adult Kidney Cancer. J Cancer Educ 2017;32(4):878-884.
• 18. Passos KK, Leonel AC, Bonan PR, et al. Quality of information about oral cancer in Brazilian Portuguese available on Google, Youtube, and Instagram. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2020;25(3):346-352.
• 19. Gunnarsdot S , Donovan HS, Serlin RC, Voge C, Ward S. Patient-related barriers to pain management: the Barriers Questionnaire II (BQ-II). Pain 2002; 99 (3): 385-396.
• 20. 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.
• 21. Ebel MD, Stellamanns J, Keinki C, Rudolph I, Huebner J. Cancer Patients and the Internet: a Survey Among German Cancer Patients. J Cancer Educ 2017;32(3):503-508.
• 22. Washington TA, Fanciullo GJ, Sorensen JA, Baird JC. Quality of chronic pain websites. Pain Med 2008;9(8):994-1000.
• 23. Schreuders EH, Grobbee EJ, Kuipers EJ, Spaander MC, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ. Variable Quality and Readability of Patient-oriented Websites on Colorectal Cancer Screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15(1):79-85.
• 24. Nghiem AZ, Mahmoud Y, Som R. Evaluating the quality of internet information for breast cancer. Breast 2016;25:34-37.