Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Cancer Education 3/2019

01-06-2019

A Systematic Assessment of Google Search Queries and Readability of Online Gynecologic Oncology Patient Education Materials

Authors: Alexandra Martin, J. Ryan Stewart, Jeremy Gaskins, Erin Medlin

Published in: Journal of Cancer Education | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

The Internet is a major source of health information for gynecologic cancer patients. In this study, we systematically explore common Google search terms related to gynecologic cancer and calculate readability of top resulting websites. We used Google AdWords Keyword Planner to generate a list of commonly searched keywords related to gynecologic oncology, which were sorted into five groups (cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer) using five patient education websites from sgo.​org. Each keyword was Google searched to create a list of top websites. The Python programming language (version 3.5.1) was used to describe frequencies of keywords, top-level domains (TLDs), domains, and readability of top websites using four validated formulae. Of the estimated 1,846,950 monthly searches resulting in 62,227 websites, the most common was cancer.​org. The most common TLD was *.com. Most websites were above the eighth-grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institute of Health (NIH). The SMOG Index was the most reliable formula. The mean grade level readability for all sites using SMOG was 9.4 ± 2.3, with 23.9% of sites falling at or below the eighth-grade reading level. The first ten results for each Google keyword were easiest to read with results beyond the first page of Google being consistently more difficult. Keywords related to gynecologic malignancies are Google-searched frequently. Most websites are difficult to read without a high school education. This knowledge may help gynecologic oncology providers adequately meet the needs of their patients.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Perrin A, Duggan M (2015) Americans’ Internet access: 2000–2015. Pew Research Center Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping the World:1–12 Perrin A, Duggan M (2015) Americans’ Internet access: 2000–2015. Pew Research Center Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping the World:1–12
2.
go back to reference Fox S (2011) Health topics. Pew Research Center Pew Internet and American Life Project Fox S (2011) Health topics. Pew Research Center Pew Internet and American Life Project
4.
go back to reference Lee K, Kreshnik H, Jeffery H, Lynne E (2014) Dr. Google and the consumer: a qualitative study exploring the navigational needs and online health information-seeking behaviors of consumers with chronic health conditions. J Med Internet Res 16(12):1CrossRef Lee K, Kreshnik H, Jeffery H, Lynne E (2014) Dr. Google and the consumer: a qualitative study exploring the navigational needs and online health information-seeking behaviors of consumers with chronic health conditions. J Med Internet Res 16(12):1CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gynecologists, American College of Obstetricians and (2016) Health literacy to promote quality of care. Committee Opinion No. 676. Obstet Gynecol 128:183–186CrossRef Gynecologists, American College of Obstetricians and (2016) Health literacy to promote quality of care. Committee Opinion No. 676. Obstet Gynecol 128:183–186CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Baazeem M, Abenhaim H (2014) Google and women’s health-related issues: what does the search engine data reveal? Online J Public Health Informatics 6(2):187 Baazeem M, Abenhaim H (2014) Google and women’s health-related issues: what does the search engine data reveal? Online J Public Health Informatics 6(2):187
12.
go back to reference McLeod J, Yu I, Ingledew PA (2016) Peering into the deep: characterizing the Internet search patterns of patients with gynecologic cancers. J Canc Educ 32:85–90CrossRef McLeod J, Yu I, Ingledew PA (2016) Peering into the deep: characterizing the Internet search patterns of patients with gynecologic cancers. J Canc Educ 32:85–90CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN No. RBR-8-75 (Research Branch) Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN No. RBR-8-75 (Research Branch)
15.
go back to reference Dale E, Chall JS (1948) A formula for predicting readability: instructions. Educ Res Bull 27(2):37–54 Dale E, Chall JS (1948) A formula for predicting readability: instructions. Educ Res Bull 27(2):37–54
17.
go back to reference Laughlin GHM (1969) SMOG grading-a new readability formula. J Read 12(8):639–646 Laughlin GHM (1969) SMOG grading-a new readability formula. J Read 12(8):639–646
20.
go back to reference Freda MC, Damus K, Merkatz IR (1999) Evaluation of the readability of ACOG patient education pamphlets. Obstet Gynecol 93(5):771–774PubMed Freda MC, Damus K, Merkatz IR (1999) Evaluation of the readability of ACOG patient education pamphlets. Obstet Gynecol 93(5):771–774PubMed
22.
go back to reference Rosenberg SA, Francis DM, Hullet CR, Morris ZS, Brower JV, Anderson BM, Bradley KA, Bassetti MF, Kimple RJ (2017) Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population. Pract Radiat Oncol 7:57–62CrossRefPubMed Rosenberg SA, Francis DM, Hullet CR, Morris ZS, Brower JV, Anderson BM, Bradley KA, Bassetti MF, Kimple RJ (2017) Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population. Pract Radiat Oncol 7:57–62CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Azer SA, Alghofaili MM, Alsultan RM, Alrumaih NS (2017) Accuracy and readability of websites on kidney and bladder cancers. J Cancer Educ:1–19 Azer SA, Alghofaili MM, Alsultan RM, Alrumaih NS (2017) Accuracy and readability of websites on kidney and bladder cancers. J Cancer Educ:1–19
24.
go back to reference Kamvar M, Baluja S (2006) A large scale study of wireless search behavior: Google Mobile Search. CHI ‘06 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems:701–709 Kamvar M, Baluja S (2006) A large scale study of wireless search behavior: Google Mobile Search. CHI ‘06 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems:701–709
25.
go back to reference Prevention, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and. 2010. Simply put a guide for creating easy-to-understand materials. Strategic and Proactive Communication Branch 3 Prevention, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and. 2010. Simply put a guide for creating easy-to-understand materials. Strategic and Proactive Communication Branch 3
Metadata
Title
A Systematic Assessment of Google Search Queries and Readability of Online Gynecologic Oncology Patient Education Materials
Authors
Alexandra Martin
J. Ryan Stewart
Jeremy Gaskins
Erin Medlin
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0885-8195
Electronic ISSN: 1543-0154
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1319-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Journal of Cancer Education 3/2019 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine