Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cancer Causes & Control
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 2/2006

01-03-2006 | Original Paper

Accessibility of Web Sites Containing Colorectal Cancer Information to Adults with Limited Literacy (United States)

Authors: Kimberly A. Kaphingst, Christine J. Zanfini, Karen M. Emmons

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 2/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The Internet could be a key channel for disseminating information about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Little research, however, has systematically examined factors other than writing style related to the reading difficulty of cancer information on the Internet. In the present study we assessed the reading difficulty of 19 CRC Web sites.

Methods

We assessed pages within selected sites containing information on CRC screening or prevention using the SMOG readability formula and Suitability Assessment of Materials instrument.

Results

The average SMOG reading grade level was 12.8. The SAM results indicated common problems with the sites, including (1) lack of review of key ideas; (2) insufficient use of illustrations for key messages; (3) crowded layout and long line lengths; (4) small type size and lack of cues to highlight key content; and (5) lack of interactive features.

Conclusions

Many Web sites providing CRC information may be too difficult for the average American adult and much too difficult for adults with limited literacy. The unique features of the Internet that could support learning are not being utilized. The Internet could be a powerful tool for educating individuals about CRC, but the barrier of difficult content must be addressed along with access barriers.
Literature
1.
Pignone, M, Rich, M, Teutsch, SM, Berg, AO, Lohr, KN 2002Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task ForceAnn Intern Med137132141PubMed
2.
US Preventive Services Task Force2002Screening for colorectal cancer: Recommendation and rationaleAnn Intern Med137129131
3.
Levin, B, Smith, RA, Feldman, GE,  et al. 2002Promoting early detection tests for colorectal carcinoma and adenomatous polyps: A framework for action: The strategic plan of the National Colorectal Cancer RoundtableCancer9516181628CrossRefPubMed
4.
MMWR2003Colorectal cancer test use among persons aged ⩾ 50 years – United States, 2001MMWR52193196
5.
Anderson, L, May, DS 1995Has the use of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States?Am J Public Health85840842PubMed
6.
Brown, ML, Potosky, AL, Thompson, GB, Kessler, LG 1990The knowledge and use of screening tests for colorectal and prostate cancer: Data from the 1987 National Health Interview SurveyPrev Med19562574CrossRefPubMed
7.
Cokkinides, VE, Chao, A, Smith, RA, Vernon, SW, Thun, MJ 2003Correlates of underutilization of colorectal cancer screening among US adults, age 50 years and olderPrev Med368591CrossRefPubMed
8.
Nadel, MR, Blackman, DK, Shapiro, JA, Seeff, LC 2002Are people being screened for colorectal cancer as recommended?Prev Med35199206CrossRefPubMed
9.
Polednak, AP 1990Knowledge of colorectal cancer and use of screening tests in persons 40–74 years of agePrev Med19213226CrossRefPubMed
10.
Slattery, ML, Edwards, SL, Ma, KN, Friedman, GD 2000Colon cancer screening, lifestyle, and risk of colon cancerCancer Causes Control11555563PubMed
11.
Vernon, SW 1997Participation in colorectal cancer screening: A reviewJ Natl Cancer Inst8914061422CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A (1993) Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey, National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, Washington, DC
13.
Baker, L, Wagner, TH, Singer, S, Bundorf, MK 2003Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: Results from a national surveyJAMA28924002406CrossRefPubMed
14.
Fox S, Fallows D (2003) Internet Health Resources. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project
15.
Berland, GK, Elliott, MN, Morales, LS,  et al. 2001Health information on the Internet: Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and SpanishJAMA28526122621CrossRefPubMed
16.
Croft, DR, Peterson, MW 2002An evaluation of the quality and contents of asthma education on the World Wide WebChest12113011307CrossRefPubMed
17.
D’Alessandro, DM, Kingsley, P, Johnson-West, J 2001The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide WebArch Pediatr Adolesc Med155807812PubMed
18.
Doak, CC, Doak, LG, Root, JH 1996Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills2J.B. Lippincott CompanyPhiladelphia, PA
19.
Eysenbach, G, Powell, J, Kuss, O, Sa, E-R 2002Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: A systematic reviewJAMA28726912700CrossRefPubMed
20.
Graber, MA, D’Alessandro, DM, Johnson-West, J 2002Reading level of privacy policies on Internet health web sitesJ Fam Pract51642645PubMed
21.
Graber, MA, Roller, CM, Kaeble, B 1999Readability levels of patient education materials on the World Wide WebJ Fam Pract485861PubMed
22.
Kisely, S, Ong, G, Takyar, A 2003A survey of the quality of web based information on the treatment of schizophrenia and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderAust N Z J Psychiatry378591CrossRefPubMed
23.
Fogel, J, Albert, SM, Schnabel, F, Ditkoff, BA, Neugut, AI 2002Use of the Internet by women with breast cancerJ Med Internet Res4e9CrossRefPubMed
24.
Licciardone, JC, Smith-Barbaro, P, Coleridge, ST 2001Use of the Internet as a resource for consumer health information: Results of the Second Osteopathic Survey of Health Care in America (OSTEOSURV-II)J Med Internet Res3e31CrossRefPubMed
25.
Murray, E, Lo, B, Pollack, L,  et al. 2003The impact of health information on the Internet on the physician-patient relationshipArch Intern Med 16317271734CrossRefPubMed
26.
Children’s Partnership (2000) Online Content for Low-Income and Underserved Americans: The Digital Divide’s New Frontier. The Children’s Partnership, Washington, DC
27.
Eng, TR, Maxfield, A, Patrick, K, Deering, MJ, Ratzan, SC, Gustafson, DH 1998Access to health information and support: A public highway or a private roadJAMA28013711375CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zarcadoolas, C, Blanco, M, Boyer, JF, Pleasant, A 2002Unweaving the Web: an exploratory study of low-literate adults’ navigation skills on the World Wide WebJ Health Comm7309324
29.
Lenhart, A, Horrigan, J, Rainie, L,  et al. 2003The Ever-Shifting Internet PopulationPew Internet and American Life ProjectWashington, DC
30.
Pew Internet and American Life Project (2002) What Percentage are Online 2002. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project
31.
Fogel, J 2003Internet use for cancer information among racial/ethnic populations and low literacy groupsCancer Control104551PubMed
32.
Wilson, FL, Baker, LM, Brown-Syed, C, Gollop, C 2000An analysis of the readability and cultural sensitivity of information on the National Cancer Institute’s web site: CancerNetOncol Nurs Forum2714031409PubMed
33.
Eysenbach, G, Kohler, C 2002How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviewsBMJ324573577CrossRefPubMed
34.
Harris Interactive (2003) No Significant Change in the Numbers of “Cyberchondriacs” – Those Who Go Online for Health Care Information. Harris Interactive, Rochester, NY
35.
Fox, S, Rainie, L 2002Vital DecisionsPew Internet and American Life ProjectWashington, DC
36.
McLaughlin, G 1969SMOG grading – a new readability formulaJ Read12639646
Metadata
Title
Accessibility of Web Sites Containing Colorectal Cancer Information to Adults with Limited Literacy (United States)
Authors
Kimberly A. Kaphingst
Christine J. Zanfini
Karen M. Emmons
Publication date
01-03-2006
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 2/2006
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-005-5116-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2006

Cancer Causes & Control 2/2006 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Population-based Mammography Screening and Breast Cancer Incidence in New South Wales, Australia

Original Paper

Race/Ethnicity and Changing US Socioeconomic Gradients in Breast Cancer Incidence: California and Massachusetts, 1978–2002 (United States)

Original Paper

Diet After Diagnosis and the Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression, Recurrence, and Death (United States)

Original Paper

Dietary Phytoestrogen, Serum Enterolactone and Risk of Prostate Cancer: The Cancer Prostate Sweden Study (Sweden)

Original Paper

Genetic Susceptibility to Prostate Cancer: Prostate-specific Antigen and its Interaction with the Androgen Receptor (United States)

Original Paper

Do Centralised Skin Screening Clinics Increase Participation in Melanoma Screening (Australia)?
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

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
Image Credits