Readability of selected governmental and popular health organization websites on Covid-19 public health information: A descriptive analysis
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (USDHHS) recommends that health material be written at or below a sixth-grade reading level to ensure readability. The aim of this study was to examine the readability of international and national health organizations on Covid-19 information in their websites employing a previously validated tool.
Methods
A purposive sample of publicly accessible governmental and popular international health organization websites was selected. The readability of the websites’ Covid-19 public health information was estimated using the previously validated SMOG readability formula, which determined reading level by correlating the number of polysyllabic words.
Results
Of the 10 websites included in the analysis, none had Covid-19 public health information at the USDHHS’s recommended reading level. The material ranged in reading level at undergraduate level or above.
Discussion
The findings indicate that the online Covid-19 materials need to be modified in order to reach recommended reading levels. This study can be of practical use to policy makers and public health government officials when designing, modifying, and evaluating Covid-19 materials. We recommend using simple, non-polysyllable words to ensure that Covid-19 public health information materials are written at the recommended reading levels.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.27.20141770: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.27.20141770: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
