Open AccessOnline Health Information Regarding Male Infertility: An Evaluation of Readability, Suitability, and Quality
Author(s) -
Stéphanie Robins,
Helena J. Barr,
Rachel Idelson,
Sylvie Lambert,
Phyllis Zelkowitz
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
interactive journal of medical research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1929-073X
DOI - 10.2196/ijmr.6440
Subject(s) - readability , infertility , fertility , population , medicine , information quality , fertility clinic , quality (philosophy) , family medicine , the internet , demography , health information , health care , psychology , computer science , environmental health , political science , information system , world wide web , biology , pregnancy , sociology , philosophy , genetics , epistemology , law , programming language
Background Many men lack knowledge about male infertility, and this may have consequences for their reproductive and general health. Men may prefer to seek health information online, but these sources of information vary in quality. Objective The objective of this study is to determine if online sources of information regarding male infertility are readable, suitable, and of appropriate quality for Internet users in the general population. Methods This study used a cross-sectional design to evaluate online sources resulting from search engine queries. The following categories of websites were considered: (1) Canadian fertility clinics, (2) North American organizations related to fertility, and (3) the first 20 results of Google searches using the terms “male infertility” and “male fertility preservation” set to the search locations worldwide, English Canada, and French Canada. Websites that met inclusion criteria (N=85) were assessed using readability indices, the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), and the DISCERN tool. The associations between website affiliation (government, university/medical, non-profit organization, commercial/corporate, private practice) and Google placement to readability, suitability, and quality were also examined. Results None of the sampled websites met recommended levels of readability. Across all websites, the mean SAM score for suitability was 45.37% (SD 11.21), or “adequate”, while the DISCERN mean score for quality was 43.19 (SD 10.46) or “fair”. Websites that placed higher in Google obtained a higher overall score for quality with an r (58) value of -.328 and a P value of .012, but this position was not related to readability or suitability. In addition, 20% of fertility clinic websites did not include fertility information for men. Conclusions There is a lack of high quality online sources of information on male fertility. Many websites target their information to women, or fail to meet established readability criteria for the general population. Since men may prefer to seek health information online, it is important that health care professionals develop high quality sources of information on male fertility for the general population.