Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2016.17.12.5237

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)
Publication Information
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention / v.17, no.12, 2016 , pp. 5237-5242 More about this Journal
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
Cancer screening; readability; anti-cancer screening online messages; pro-cancer screening online messages;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ley P (1998). The use and improvement of written communication in mental health care and promotion. Psychol Health Med, 3, 19-53.   DOI
2 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.   DOI
3 Mohammadzadeh Z, Davoodi S, Ghazisaeidi M (2015). Online social networks - opportunities for empowering cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 17, 933-6.
4 Montazeri A, Sajadian A (2004). Do women read poster displays on breast cancer in waiting rooms?. J Public Health, 26, 355-8.   DOI
5 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.
6 Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA Eds (2004). Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
7 OECD Health Statistics. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=HEALTH_STAT#. Accessed 5 September 2016.
8 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.
9 Oldach BR, Katz ML (2014). Health literacy and cancer screening: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns, 94, 149-57.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 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.
12 Shahrokni A, Mahmoudzadeh S, Lu BT (2013). In whom do cancer survivors trust online and offline?. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 6171-76.
13 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.
14 Schwarz N (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. J Consum Psychol, 14, 332-48.   DOI
15 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.
16 StatCounter Global Stats (2016). http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-search_engine-JP-monthly-201608-201608-bar. Accessed 5 September 2016.
17 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.
18 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.   DOI
19 Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol, 5, 207-32.   DOI
20 Utsumi S (2016). Facebook of Utsumi Satoru. https://www.facebook.com/satoru.utsumi. Accessed 5 December 2016.
21 Akansel N, Aydin N (2011). Suitability of Turkish written patient educational materials related to breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1543-7.
22 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.   DOI
23 Alter AM, Oppenheimer DM (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 13, 219-35.   DOI
24 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.   DOI
25 Biermann JS, Golladay GJ, Greenfield ML, Baker LH (1999). Evaluation of cancer information on the Internet. Cancer, 86, 381-90.   DOI
26 Byrne T, Edeani D (1984). Knowledge of medical terminology among hospital patients. Nurs Res, 33, 178-81.
27 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.   DOI
28 Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL (1998). Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: Evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. BMJ, 317, 1496-500.   DOI
29 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.
30 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.   DOI
31 Flavell J (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am Psychol, 34, 906-11.   DOI
32 Funase S (2016). Funase HP all over the world. http://funase.net/. Accessed 5 December 2016.
33 Fox S, Duggan M (2013). Health online 2013. Information Triage. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/information-triage/. Accessed 5 September 2016.
34 Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF (2004). Readability of cancer information on the Internet. J Cancer Educ, 19, 117-22.   DOI
35 Grewal P, Alagaratnam S (2013). The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the internet. Int J Surg, 11, 410-13.   DOI
36 Claypool H, Mackie D, Garcia-Marques T (2015). Fluency and attitudes. Soc Personal Psychol Compass, 9, 370-82.   DOI
37 Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Health Literacy (2009). Measures of health literacy: workshop summary. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
38 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.
39 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.   DOI
40 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.   DOI
41 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.   DOI
42 Klare GR (2000). The measurement of readability: useful information for communicators. ACM J Comput Doc, 24, 107-21.   DOI
43 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.
44 Lee JH (2011). The utility of corpora for composing reading comprehension questions for large-scale tests. Teaching Jpn, 148, 84-98.
45 Lee JH, Hasebe Y (2013). Japanese text readability measurement system. http://jreadability.net/. Accessed 5 September 2016.