@Article{info:doi/10.2196/34003,
author="Yeung, Andy Wai Kan
and Wochele-Thoma, Thomas
and Eibensteiner, Fabian
and Klager, Elisabeth
and Hribersek, Mojca
and Parvanov, Emil D
and Hrg, Dalibor
and V{\"o}lkl-Kernstock, Sabine
and Kletecka-Pulker, Maria
and Schaden, Eva
and Willschke, Harald
and Atanasov, Atanas G",
title="Official Websites Providing Information on COVID-19 Vaccination: Readability and Content Analysis",
journal="JMIR Public Health Surveill",
year="2022",
month="Mar",
day="15",
volume="8",
number="3",
pages="e34003",
keywords="COVID-19; coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; vaccine; readability; content quality; online health information; side effect; public health; medicine; quality; perception",
abstract="Background: Online information on COVID-19 vaccination may influence people's perception and willingness to be vaccinated. Official websites of vaccination programs have not been systematically assessed before. Objective: This study aims to assess and compare the readability and content quality of web-based information on COVID-19 vaccination posted on official/governmental websites. Furthermore, the relationship between evaluated website parameters and country vaccination rates were calculated. Methods: By referring to an open data set hosted at Our World in Data, the 58 countries/regions with the highest total vaccination count as of July 8, 2021, were identified. Together with the websites from the World Health Organization and European Union, a total of 60 vaccination campaign websites were targeted. The ``frequently asked questions'' or ``questions and answers'' section of the websites were evaluated in terms of readability (Flesch Reading Ease score and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), quality (Health On the Net Foundation code [HONcode] certification and Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool), and content stating vaccination duration of protection and potential side effects. Results: In terms of readability, the Flesch Reading Ease score of the vaccination frequently asked questions websites ranged between 11.2 and 69.5, with a mean of 40.9 (SD 13.2). Meanwhile, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level ranged between 6.5 and 17.6, with a mean of 12.1 (SD 2.8). In terms of quality, only 2 websites were HONcode certified, and the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool score of the websites ranged between 7 and 20, with a mean of 15.3 (SD 3.1). Half of the websites (25/50) did not present a publication date or date of the last update. Regarding the duration of protection offered by the vaccines, 46{\%} (23/50) of the websites stated that they do not know, and another 40{\%} (20/50) did not address it. Five side effects of the vaccinations were most frequently mentioned, namely, fever/chill (41/50, 82{\%}), various injection site discomfort events (eg, swelling, redness, or pain; 39/50, 78{\%}), headache (36/50, 72{\%}), fatigue (33/50, 66{\%}), and muscle/joint pain (31/50, 62{\%}). Conclusions: In general, the content quality of most of the evaluated websites was good, but HONcode certification should be considered, content should be written in a more readable manner, and a publication date or date of the last update should be presented. ",
issn="2369-2960",
doi="10.2196/34003",
url="https://publichealth.jmir.org/2022/3/e34003",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/34003",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35073276"
}