Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Medicine

ISSN 2095-0217

ISSN 2095-0225(Online)

CN 11-5983/R

Postal Subscription Code 80-967

2018 Impact Factor: 1.847

Front. Med.    2017, Vol. 11 Issue (3) : 423-431    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-017-0524-9
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Quality and readability of online information resources on insomnia
Yan Ma1(), Albert C. Yang1, Ying Duan2, Ming Dong3, Albert S. Yeung4
1. Division of Interdisciplinary Medicine and Biotechnology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA
2. Sleep Medicine Center, Airforce General Hospital, Beijing 100142, China
3. IBM, Software Development Lab, Littleton, MA 01460, USA
4. Depression Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA
 Download: PDF(242 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The internet is a major source for health information. An increasing number of people, including patients with insomnia, search for remedies online; however, little is known about the quality of such information. This study aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of insomnia-related online information. Google was used as the search engine, and the top websites on insomnia that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated for quality and readability. The analyzed websites belonged to nonprofit, commercial, or academic organizations and institutions such as hospitals and universities. Insomnia-related websites typically included definitions (85%), causes and risk factors (100%), symptoms (95%), and treatment options (90%). Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) was the most commonly recommended approach for insomnia treatment, and sleep drugs are frequently mentioned. The overall quality of the websites on insomnia is moderate, but all the content exceeded the recommended reading ease levels. Concerns that must be addressed to increase the quality and trustworthiness of online health information include sharing metadata, such as authorship, time of creation and last update, and conflicts of interest; providing evidence for reliability; and increasing the readability for a layman audience.

Keywords insomnia      internet      readability      information quality      health literacy      cognitive behavioral therapy      treatment     
Corresponding Author(s): Yan Ma   
Just Accepted Date: 07 April 2017   Online First Date: 16 May 2017    Issue Date: 29 August 2017
 Cite this article:   
Yan Ma,Albert C. Yang,Ying Duan, et al. Quality and readability of online information resources on insomnia[J]. Front. Med., 2017, 11(3): 423-431.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fmd/EN/10.1007/s11684-017-0524-9
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fmd/EN/Y2017/V11/I3/423
DISCERNScores95% CI
SECTION 1: Is the publication reliable?
1. Are the aims clear?4.3(4.1, 4.5)
2. Does it achieve its aims?3.8(3.5, 4.1)
3. Is it relevant?4.3(4.1, 4.5)
4. Is it clear what sources of information were used to compile the publication (other than the author or producer)?3.1(2.6, 3.6)
5. Is it clear when the information used or reported in the publication was produced?2.9(2.4, 3.4)
6. Is it balanced and unbiased?3.8(3.5, 4)
7. Does it provide details of additional sources of support and information?3.4(2.9, 3.8)
8. Does it refer to areas of uncertainty?2.1(1.8, 2.4)
SECTION 2: How good is the quality of information on treatment choices?
9. Does it describe how each treatment works?3.4(3, 3.8)
10. Does it describe the benefits of each treatment?3.5(3.1, 3.8)
11. Does it describe the risks of each treatment?2.8(2.4, 3.2)
12. Does it describe what would happen if no treatment is used?3.1(2.7, 3.4)
13. Does it describe how the treatment choices affect overall quality of life?2.8(2.4, 3.1)
14. Is it clear that there may be more than one possible treatment choice?3.8(3.4, 4.1)
15. Does it provide support for shared decision-making?3.1(2.6, 3.5)
SECTION 3: Overall rating of the publication
16. Based on the answers to all of the above questions, rate the overall quality of the publication as a source of information about treatment choices3.3(2.9, 3.7)
Tab.1  16 items of DISCERN and mean scores of the included websites
ReadabilityEquivalent grade
level in the US
British school ageFRESFKGLGFOG or SMOG
Extremely easy4th or belowOver 10000?6
Very easy5th9?12 years90?1001?5
Easy6th80?89
Fairly easy7th12?15 years70?79
Standard8th?9th60?696?87?8
Fairly difficult10th?12th15?17 years50?599?149?12
DifficultCollege30?4913?16
Very confusingAbove college0?29≥1517?19
Tab.2  Readability score/index and equivalent readability level, US school grade level and UK School Age
The studied websitesQualityReadability
Evaluated itemsDISCERNChecklistFRESFKGLGFOGSMOG
Reference score/recommended level0?80Yes (%)60?696?8<12<10
WebMD55.580%50.111.113.410.4
National Sleep Foundation62.870%50.611.414.410.6
Mayo Clinic62.590%57.88.911.78.7
Helpguide.org64.580%58.39.512.69.2
Wikipedia67.580%30.213.817.212.8
MNT Knowledge Center48.090%28.513.616.712.3
eMedicineHealth62.590%37.212.215.211.3
American Academy of Sleep Medicine50.070%46.710.914.010.4
Dr. Weil40.350%51.39.712.39.4
NIH56.870%57.98.911.58.7
MedlinePlus44.080%56.18.710.48.7
MedicineNet63.090%30.713.817.612.8
Life Extension62.060%33.713.215.612.1
Medscape Reference68.890%30.014.518.313.5
insomnia.net37.020%39.914.717.312.0
LiveScience47.570%40.313.916.312.4
PyschCentral37.850%33.111.815.411.1
Everyday Health45.030%40.011.915.111.4
University of Cambridge45.350%57.111.013.89.7
American Sleep Association45.840%52.110.313.410.0
Overall quality and readability53.368%44.111.714.610.9
Tab.3  Quality and readability of included 20 websites
Fig.1  Quality checklist items for included 20 websites.
Fig.2  Content checklist for the top 20 websites.
Fig.3  Recommended therapies by the top 20 websites.
1 Statistics Canada. Canadian Internet Use Survey-2009. 2010. Available from:
2 Atkinson NL, Saperstein SL, Pleis J. Using the internet for health-related activities: findings from a national probability sample. J Med Internet Res 2009; 11(1): e4
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1035 pmid: 19275980
3 Ybarra ML, Suman M. Help seeking behavior and the Internet: a national survey. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75(1): 29–41
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.029 pmid: 16129659
4 Fallowfield LJ, Hall A, Maguire GP, Baum M. Psychological outcomes of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer outside a clinical trial. BMJ 1990; 301(6752): 575–580
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.301.6752.575 pmid: 2242455
5 Gilmour JA, Huntington A, Broadbent R, Strong A, Hawkins M. Nurses’ use of online health information in medical wards. J Adv Nurs 2012; 68(6): 1349–1358
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05845.x pmid: 21999429
6 Kumar VS, Subramani S, Veerapan S, Khan SA. Evaluation of online health information on clubfoot using the DISCERN tool. J Pediatr Orthop B 2014; 23(2): 135–138 
pmid: 24048196
7 Ma Y, Dong M, Mita C, Sun S, Peng CK, Yang AC. Publication analysis on insomnia: how much has been done in the past two decades? Sleep Med 2015; 16(7): 820–826
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2014.12.028 pmid: 25979182
8 Pletneva N, Vargas A, Kalogianni K, Boyer C. Online health information search: what struggles and empowers the users? Results of an online survey. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012; 180: 843–847
pmid: 22874311
9 NETMARKETSHARE. Desktop Search Engine Market Share. Available from:  (Accessed April 13, 2017)
10 Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287(20): 2691–2700
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.20.2691 pmid: 12020305
11 Feufel MA, Stahl SF. What do web-use skill differences imply for online health information searches? J Med Internet Res 2012; 14(3): e87
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2051 pmid: 22695686
12 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
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105 pmid: 10396471
13 Ademiluyi G, Rees CE, Sheard CE. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 50(2): 151–155
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00124-6 pmid: 12781930
14 Wilson P. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet. BMJ 2002; 324(7337): 598–602
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.598 pmid: 11884329
15 Aldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT. Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid? Eur J Orthod 2012; 34(4): 466–469
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr046 pmid: 21459834
16 Batchelor JM, Ohya Y. Use of the DISCERN instrument by patients and health professionals to assess information resources on treatments for asthma and atopic dermatitis. Allergol Int 2009; 58(1): 141–145
17 Fast AM, Deibert CM, Hruby GW, Glassberg KI. Evaluating the quality of Internet health resources in pediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol 2013; 9(2): 151–156
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.01.004 pmid: 22281281
18 Kaicker J, Debono VB, Dang W, Buckley N, Thabane L. Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument. BMC Med 2010; 8(1): 59
https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-59 pmid: 20939875
19 Pusz MD, Brietzke SE. How good is Google? The quality of otolaryngology information on the internet. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 147(3): 462–465
https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812447733
20 Zahedi R, Taheri B, Shahrzadi L, Tazhibi M, Ashrafi-rizi H. Quality of Persian addiction websites: a survey based on silberg, discern and wqet instruments (2011). Acta Inform Med 2013; 21(1): 46–50
https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2012.21.46-50 pmid: 23572862
21 Cerminara C, Santarone ME, Casarelli L, Curatolo P, El Malhany N. Use of the DISCERN tool for evaluating web searches in childhood epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav 2014; 41: 119–121
22 Daraz L, Macdermid JC, Wilkins S, Gibson J, Shaw L. The quality of websites addressing fibromyalgia: an assessment of quality and readability using standardised tools. BMJ Open 2011; 1(1): e000152
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000152 pmid: 22021777
23 Tallgren M, Bäcklund M. Patient information about general anaesthesia on the internet. Anaesthesia 2009; 64(4): 408–415
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05813.x pmid: 19317707
24 Daraz L, MacDermid JC, Wilkins S, Shaw L. Tools to evaluate the quality of web health information: a structured review of content and usability. Int J Technol Knowl Soc 2009; 5: 3
25 Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care 2008; 53(10): 1310–1315
pmid: 18811992
26 US National Library of Medicine. How to Write Easy-to-Read Health Materials 2013. Available from: . Page last updated on December 29, 2016
27 Weiss BD. Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation. 2003
28 Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. DTIC Document, 1975
29 Davis TC, Mayeaux EJ, Fredrickson D, Bocchini JA Jr, Jackson RH, Murphy PW. Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics 1994; 93(3): 460–468
pmid: 8115206
30 McLaughlin GH. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 1969; 12(8): 639–646
31 Fitzsimmons PR, Michael BD, Hulley JL, Scott GO. A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2010; 40(4): 292–296
https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2010.401 pmid: 21132132
32 Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. 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): 2618–2624
https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618 pmid: 16344419
33 Hu X, Bell RA, Kravitz RL, Orrange S. The prepared patient: information seeking of online support group members before their medical appointments. J Health Commun 2012; 17(8): 960–978
https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.650828 pmid: 22574697
34 Lv X, Ma Y, Feng F, Hong L, Wang J, Wang W. Personality development since childhood associated with adult chronic insomnia: a study by Wang’s Memory-Tracing Personality Development Inventory (WMPI). Glob J Health Sci 2016; 9(3): 80
https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v9n3p80
35 Ma Y, Yeung A, Yang AC, Peng CK, Clain A, Alpert J, Fava M, Yeung AS. The effects of tai chi on sleep quality in Chinese American patients with major depressive disorder: a pilot study. Behav Sleep Med2016 Sep 27. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1080/15402002.2016.1228643
https://doi.org/10.1080/15402002.2016.1228643 pmid: 27676270
36 Sun S, Hong L, Ma Y, Zhao Y, Qiao J. WO-109 A Chinese questionnaire-based survey: sleep medicine awareness in primary care. Sleep Med 2011; 12: S122
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9457(11)70456-7
37 Ma Y, Sun S, Peng CK. Applications of dynamical complexity theory in traditional Chinese medicine. Front Med 2014; 8(3): 279–284
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-014-0367-6 pmid: 25204292
38 Ma Y, Zhou K, Fan J, Sun S. Traditional Chinese medicine: potential approaches from modern dynamical complexity theories. Front Med 2016; 10(1): 28–32
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-016-0434-2 pmid: 26809465
39 Ma Y, McCraty R. Heart rate variability in mind-body interventions. Complement Ther Med 2016; 29: A1–A2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2016.05.003 pmid: 27912965
40 Shi W, Shang P, Ma Y, Sun S, Yeh CH. A comparison study on stages of sleep: quantifying multiscale complexity using higher moments on coarse-graining. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 2017; 44: 292–303
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2016.08.019
41 Ma Y, Sun S, Peng CK, Fang Y, Thomas RJ. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in Chinese obstructive sleep apnea patients. J Clin Sleep Med  2017;13(3):433–439
https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.6498 pmid: 27855748
42 Lu Y, Sun Y, Ma Y, Li H, Chang Y, Tong Y, Sun S. Investigation on the awareness of sleep medicine in a university of traditional Chinese medicine. Sleep Med 2015; 16(S1): S61
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2015.02.153
43 Ma Y, Sun S. Knowledge update on complex sleep apnea. Chin J Tuberc Respir Dis (Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi) 2013; 36(9): 687–691 (in Chinese)
44 Tseng PH, Lee PL, Hsu WC, Ma Y, Lee YC, Chiu HM, Ho YL, Chen MF, Wu MS, Peng CK. A higher proportion of metabolic syndrome in Chinese subjects with sleep-disordered breathing: a case-control study based on electrocardiogram-derived sleep analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12(1): e0169394
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169394 pmid: 28081171
45 Hong L, Ma Y, Lin Y, Wang F, Tong C, Zhao X, Wang W. Correlation study of depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance. Int J Tradit Chin Med (Guo Ji Zhong Yi Zhong Yao Za Zhi) 2009; 31(2): 152–154 (in Chinese)
46 Hong L, Wei H, Ma Y, Wang W. Manifestation study on depression in comprehensive hospitals. Int J Tradit Chin Med (Guo Ji Zhong Yi Zhong Yao Za Zhi) 2010; 32(3): 259–261 (in Chinese)
47 Ma Y. Review on sleep belief and attitude. World J Sleep Med (Shi Jie Shui Mian Yi Xue Za Zhi) 2015; 2(6): 356–361 (in Chinese)
48 Ma Y, Dong M, Zhou K, Mita C, Liu J, Wayne PM. Publication trends in acupuncture research: a 20-year bibliometric analysis based on PubMed. PLoS One 2016; 11(12): e0168123
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168123 pmid: 27973611
49 Zhou K, Ma Y, Brogan MS. Dry needling versus acupuncture: the ongoing debate. Acupunct Med  2015; 33(6): 485–490
50 Xu H, Ma Y, Wang W. Patients’ independent choices to resistance. Med Philos (Humanist Soc Med Ed) (Yi Xue Yu Zhe Xue: Ren Wen She Hui Yi Xue Ban). 2010; 31(2): 44–46 (in Chinese)
51 Ma Y, Sun SC. Sleep medicine and blood pressure variation: significance to clinical application of anti-hypertensive medicines. World J Sleep Med (Shi Jie Shui Mian Yi Xue Za Zhi) 2014; (4): 235–238 (in Chinese)
52 McPherson AC, Gofine ML, Stinson J. Seeing is believing? A mixed-methods study exploring the quality and perceived trustworthiness of online information about chronic conditions aimed at children and young people. Health Commun 2014; 29(5): 473–482
https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.768325 pmid: 24099647
53 Tan BH, Kostapanagiotou K, Jilaihawi AN. A review of mesothelioma information on the World Wide Web. J Thorac Oncol  2009; 4(1): 102–104
54 Kaicker J, Dang W, Mondal T. Assessing the quality and reliability of health information on ERCP using the DISCERN instrument. Health Care Curr Rev 2013;1: 104. doi:10.4172/hccr.1000104
55 Ye Y. Correlates of consumer trust in online health information: findings from the health information national trends survey. J Health Commun 2011; 16(1): 34–49
https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.529491 pmid: 21086209
56 Hargrave DR, Hargrave UA, Bouffet E. Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro-oncol 2006; 8(2): 175–182
https://doi.org/10.1215/15228517-2005-008 pmid: 16533758
57 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. JAMA 2001; 285(20): 2612–2621
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.20.2612 pmid: 11368735
58 D’Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J. The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001; 155(7): 807–812
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.155.7.807 pmid: 11434848
59 Graber MA, Roller CM, Kaeble B. Readability levels of patient education material on the World Wide Web. J Fam Pract 1999; 48(1): 58–61
pmid: 9934385
[1] Solmaz Ohadian Moghadam, Seyed Ali Momeni. Human microbiome and prostate cancer development: current insights into the prevention and treatment[J]. Front. Med., 2021, 15(1): 11-32.
[2] Ke Sheng. Artificial intelligence in radiotherapy: a technological review[J]. Front. Med., 2020, 14(4): 431-449.
[3] Min Zhou, Xinxin Zhang, Jieming Qu. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a clinical update[J]. Front. Med., 2020, 14(2): 126-135.
[4] Tung Huynh, Ke-Qin Hu. Direct acting antiviral-induced dynamic reduction of serum α fetoprotein in hepatitis C patients without hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Front. Med., 2019, 13(6): 658-666.
[5] Tianyuan Li, Renbing Jia, Xianqun Fan. Classification and treatment of orbital venous malformations: an updated review[J]. Front. Med., 2019, 13(5): 547-555.
[6] Jing Yue, Bo Zhang, Mingyue Wang, Junning Yao, Yifan Zhou, Ding Ma, Lei Jin. Effect of antitubercular treatment on the pregnancy outcomes and prognoses of patients with genital tuberculosis[J]. Front. Med., 2019, 13(1): 121-125.
[7] Minhong Shen, Yibin Kang. Complex interplay between tumor microenvironment and cancer therapy[J]. Front. Med., 2018, 12(4): 426-439.
[8] Kuo Yang, Runshun Zhang, Liyun He, Yubing Li, Wenwen Liu, Changhe Yu, Yanhong Zhang, Xinlong Li, Yan Liu, Weiming Xu, Xuezhong Zhou, Baoyan Liu. Multistage analysis method for detection of effective herb prescription from clinical data[J]. Front. Med., 2018, 12(2): 206-217.
[9] Zongming Zhang, Zhuo Liu, Limin Liu, Mengmeng Song, Chong Zhang, Hongwei Yu, Baijiang Wan, Mingwen Zhu, Zixu Liu, Hai Deng, Haiming Yuan, Haiyan Yang, Wenping Wei, Yue Zhao. Strategies of minimally invasive treatment for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones[J]. Front. Med., 2017, 11(4): 576-589.
[10] Jing Zhang,Shan Gao,Zhongping Duan,Ke-Qin Hu. Overview on acute-on-chronic liver failure[J]. Front. Med., 2016, 10(1): 1-17.
[11] Jonathan Skupsky,Ke-Qin Hu. Current hepatitis B treatment guidelines and future research directions[J]. Front. Med., 2014, 8(2): 145-157.
[12] Rui Yu,Rong Fan,Jinlin Hou. Chronic hepatitis B virus infection: epidemiology, prevention, and treatment in China[J]. Front. Med., 2014, 8(2): 135-144.
[13] Xiangwei Li, Yu Yang, Jianmin Liu, Feng Zhou, Wei Cui, Ling Guan, Fei Shen, Cong Gao, Mufei Li, Qi Jin, Lei Gao. Treatment outcomes of pulmonary tuberculosis in the past decade in the mainland of China: a meta-analysis[J]. Front Med, 2013, 7(3): 354-366.
[14] Yingqi Zhao, Donglin Zeng. Recent development on statistical methods for personalized medicine discovery[J]. Front Med, 2013, 7(1): 102-110.
[15] Salomone Di Saverio, Fausto Catena, Michael D. Kelly, Gregorio Tugnoli, Luca Ansaloni. Severe adhesive small bowel obstruction[J]. Front Med, 2012, 6(4): 436-439.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed