|
Abstract
|
AIM: To assess the readability, accountability, and quality of burns first aid information available online.
METHODS: The top 50 English language webpages containing burns first aid information were compiled and categorised. Readability was measured using five validated tools. Accountability was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks. Quality was evaluated using a scale based on previous literature.
RESULTS: Two (4%) webpages were judged to be at the target reading level using all tools. Median grade ranged from 4.6 to 9.6 (M = 6.9, SD = 1.1). One-sample one-tailed t-test determined that median grade was not significantly below the target grade of ≤ 6.9 (p = 0.314). Only seven (14%) webpages satisfied all the JAMA accountability benchmarks. No webpages fulfilled all 15 quality criteria. Mean quality score was 9.8 (SD = 2.4). Only 27 (54%) advised 20 min of cooling. One-way analysis of variance demonstrated that accountability was influenced by source (p = 0.01). Pearson's correlation coefficient revealed that accountability and quality had a positive correlation (r = 0.32, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: Much of the burns first aid information available online is written above the recommended reading level and fails to meet standards of accountability or quality.
Language: en |