Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Readability Comparison of Pro- and Anti-Cancer Screening Online Messages in Japan

  • Okuhara, Tsuyoshi (Department of Health Communication, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo) ;
  • Ishikawa, Hirono (Department of Health Communication, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo) ;
  • Okada, Masahumi (Department of Health Communication, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo) ;
  • Kato, Mio (Department of Health Communication, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo) ;
  • Kiuchi, Takahiro (Department of Health Communication, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo)
  • Published : 2016.12.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Cancer screening rates are lower in Japan than those in western countries. Health professionals publish procancer screening messages on the internet to encourage audiences to undergo cancer screening. However, the information provided is often difficult to read for lay persons. Further, anti-cancer screening activists warn against cancer screening with messages on the Internet. We aimed to assess and compare the readability of pro- and anti-cancer screening online messages in Japan using a measure of readability. Methods: We conducted web searches at the beginning of September 2016 using two major Japanese search engines (Google.jp and Yahoo!.jp). The included websites were classified as "anti", "pro", or "neutral" depending on the claims, and "health professional" or "non-health professional" depending on the writers. Readability was determined using a validated measure of Japanese readability. Statistical analysis was conducted using two-way ANOVA. Results: In the total 159 websites analyzed, anti-cancer screening online messages were generally easier to read than pro-cancer screening online messages, Messages written by health professionals were more difficult to read than those written by non-health professionals. Claim ${\times}$ writer interaction was not significant. Conclusion: When health professionals prepare pro-cancer screening materials for publication online, we recommend they check for readability using readability assessment tools and improve text for easy comprehension when necessary.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : JSPS

References

  1. Akansel N, Aydin N (2011). Suitability of Turkish written patient educational materials related to breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1543-7.
  2. Albright J, de Guzman C, Acebo P, et al (1996). Readability of patient education materials: Implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res, 9, 139-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(96)80254-0
  3. Alter AM, Oppenheimer DM (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 13, 219-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
  4. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al (2001). Health information on the Internet: Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA, 285, 2612-21. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.20.2612
  5. Biermann JS, Golladay GJ, Greenfield ML, Baker LH (1999). Evaluation of cancer information on the Internet. Cancer, 86, 381-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990801)86:3<381::AID-CNCR4>3.0.CO;2-G
  6. Byrne T, Edeani D (1984). Knowledge of medical terminology among hospital patients. Nurs Res, 33, 178-81.
  7. Castro C, Wilson C, Wang F, Schillinger D (2007). Babel babble: Physicians' use of unclarified medical jargon with patients. Am J Health Behav, 31, 85-95. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.31.s1.11
  8. Claypool H, Mackie D, Garcia-Marques T (2015). Fluency and attitudes. Soc Personal Psychol Compass, 9, 370-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12179
  9. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL (1998). Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: Evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. BMJ, 317, 1496-500. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1496
  10. Eysenbach G, Kohler C (2002). 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, 324, 573-8.
  11. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: A systematic review. JAMA, 287, 2691-700. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.20.2691
  12. Flavell J (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am Psychol, 34, 906-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  13. Funase S (2016). Funase HP all over the world. http://funase.net/. Accessed 5 December 2016.
  14. Fox S, Duggan M (2013). Health online 2013. Information Triage. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/information-triage/. Accessed 5 September 2016.
  15. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF (2004). Readability of cancer information on the Internet. J Cancer Educ, 19, 117-22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430154jce1902_13
  16. Grewal P, Alagaratnam S (2013). The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the internet. Int J Surg, 11, 410-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.03.006
  17. Gustafson DH, Robinson TN, Ansley D, Adler L, Brennan PF (1999). Consumers and evaluation of interactive health communication applications. The science panel on interactive communication and health. Am J Prev Med, 16, 23-9.
  18. Hellawell GO, Turner KJ, Le Monnier KJ, Brewster SF (2000). Urology and the Internet: An evaluation of Internet use by urology patients and of information available on urological topics. BJU Int, 86, 191-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00831.x
  19. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al (2005). 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, 165, 2618-24. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618
  20. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Health Literacy (2009). Measures of health literacy: workshop summary. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
  21. Kim YJ, Lee GE (2014). Evaluation of readability of health leaflets and health literacy of elderly inpatients in a medical center. J Korean Gerontol Nurs, 16, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.17079/jkgn.2014.16.1.9
  22. Klare GR (2000). The measurement of readability: useful information for communicators. ACM J Comput Doc, 24, 107-21. https://doi.org/10.1145/344599.344630
  23. Kondo M (2015). Health checkup and cancer screening are useless! The famous Dr. Kondo warns. Shu pre news. http://wpb.shueisha.co.jp/2015/02/20/43779/. Accessed 5 December 2016.
  24. Lee JH (2011). The utility of corpora for composing reading comprehension questions for large-scale tests. Teaching Jpn, 148, 84-98.
  25. Lee JH, Hasebe Y (2013). Japanese text readability measurement system. http://jreadability.net/. Accessed 5 September 2016.
  26. Ley P (1998). The use and improvement of written communication in mental health care and promotion. Psychol Health Med, 3, 19-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548509808400589
  27. Lustria MLA (2007). Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, 58, 766-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20557
  28. Mohammadzadeh Z, Davoodi S, Ghazisaeidi M (2015). Online social networks - opportunities for empowering cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 17, 933-6.
  29. Montazeri A, Sajadian A (2004). Do women read poster displays on breast cancer in waiting rooms?. J Public Health, 26, 355-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdh178
  30. National Cancer Center, Japan. Cancer statistics in Japan, center for cancer control and information services. http://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/dl/index.html. Accessed 5 September 2016.
  31. Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA Eds (2004). Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
  32. OECD Health Statistics. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=HEALTH_STAT#. Accessed 5 September 2016.
  33. Okuhara T, Ishikawa H, Okada H, Kiuchi T (2014). Readability, suitability and health content assessment of cancer screening announcements in municipal newspapers in Japan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 6719-27.
  34. Oldach BR, Katz ML (2014). Health literacy and cancer screening: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns, 94, 149-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.001
  35. Rice RE (2006). Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: Multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Inform, 75, 8-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.032
  36. Rudd RE, Moeykens BA, Colton TC (2000). Health and literacy: A review of medical and public health literature. In 'The Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy', Eds Comings JP, Garner B and Smith C. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp 158-99.
  37. Shahrokni A, Mahmoudzadeh S, Lu BT (2013). In whom do cancer survivors trust online and offline?. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 6171-76.
  38. Schwarz N, Clore G.L (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In 'Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, second edition', Eds Higgins ET and Kruglanski A. Guilford, New York, pp 385-407.
  39. Schwarz N (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. J Consum Psychol, 14, 332-48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
  40. Shon J, Musen MA (1999). The low availability of metadata elements for evaluating the quality of medical information on the World Wide Web. Proc AMIA Symp, 945-9.
  41. StatCounter Global Stats (2016). http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-search_engine-JP-monthly-201608-201608-bar. Accessed 5 September 2016.
  42. Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health (2013). Tokyo cancer prevention and examination factual survey report, 2013. Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health, Tokyo.
  43. Tuna A, Avdal EU, Yucel SC, et al (2014). Effectiveness of online education in teaching breast self-examination. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 3227-31. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.7.3227
  44. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol, 5, 207-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
  45. Utsumi S (2016). Facebook of Utsumi Satoru. https://www.facebook.com/satoru.utsumi. Accessed 5 December 2016.