KASMEJ

Kastamonu Medical Journal regularly publishes internationally qualified issues in the field of Medicine in the light of up-to-date information.

EndNote Style
Index
Original Article
Evaluation of the reliability and quality of online information on brain death in Turkiye: JAMA and DISCERN assessments
Aims: In this study, we investigated the readability, quality and reliability of Turkish websites with information about brain death. We evaluated the quality and reliability of online information about brain death.
Methods: In 5 May 2024, a search was performed by typing the word "brain death" into Google's search engine (http://www.google.com). Publicly internet searches performed were analyzed. Using Google Search, the first 100 websites containing the term "brain death" were evaluated. Commercial websites, advertising sites, chat sites, forum sites, magazine sites, sites containing only images or videos were excluded from the study. After applying inclusion criteria, 88 websites were identified, 46 of which were excluded due to duplication, leaving 42 sites. An additional 12 websites were excluded for not meeting criteria. Evaluations were performed using the JAMA Benchmark criteria, which assess health information reliability across four dimensions, and the DISCERN scoring system, a tool for evaluating the quality of health information.
Results: The mean JAMA Benchmark score was 2.02 ± 1.58, and the mean DISCERN score was 42.1 ± 19.07, indicating moderate quality. Many websites failed to meet critical quality benchmarks, revealing significant gaps in the reliability and accuracy of online information about brain death.
Conclusion: As a result of this study, highlights the moderate quality of online health information about brain death and underscores the need for improvements in the reliability of such content. Greater efforts are required to enhance the visibility and accessibility of trustworthy sources. Health organizations and professionals should take a more active role in developing and promoting accurate online resources. Future research should focus on addressing gaps in public health literacy and implementing strategies to improve the dissemination of reliable health information.


1. Kuşçu ÖÖ, Aktay M. Retrospective analysis of brain death cases. JARSS. 2021;29(2):99-104. doi:10.5222/jarss.2021.02997
2. Greer DM, Kirschen MP, Lewis A, et al. Pediatric and adult brain death/death by neurologic criteria consensus guideline: report of the AAN guidelines subcommittee, AAP, CNS, and SCCM. Neurology. 2023; 101(24):1112-32. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000207740
3. Organ ve Doku Nakli Hizmetlerine Dair Yönetmelik. Resmî Gazete. Published January 18, 2014. Accessed March 19, 2025. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/01/20140118-1.htm
4. Mohamed E, Guella A. Public awareness survey about organ donation and transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2013;45(10):3469-3471. doi:10. 1016/j.transproceed.2013.08.095
5. Küçükdurmaz F, Aytekin MN, Tuncay I, Şen C. A pilot study about quality of information at health related in Turkish web sites: meniscus tear. Nobel Med. 2013;9(2):114-117.
6. Alakoç Burma Z, Özdemir AA. Ülkelerin gelir düzeyleri ve Ağa Hazırlık Endeksi bileşenlerinin: dijital göçmen yaşlı bireylerin internet ve sosyal medya kullanımlarına etkileri. Dünya İnsan Bilim Derg. 2024;2024(1):1-31. doi:10.55543/insan.1356413
7. Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT). Household Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage Survey 2024. Published 2024. Accessed March 19, 2025. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2024-53492
8. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor-let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15): 1244-1245. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
9. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105-111. doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105
10. Olkun HK, Demirkaya AA. Evaluation of Internet information about lingual orthodontics using DISCERN and JAMA tools. Turkish J Orthod. 2018;31(2):50-54. doi:10.5152/turkjorthod.2018.17042
11. Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41:433-451. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127
12. Öztürk T. Üniversitelere ait internet web sitelerinin ortodonti hastaları için sağladığı bilgi kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. Selcuk Dent J. 2021; 8(1):106-112. doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.741264
13. Yüksek A, Miniksar ÖH. Does the Internet provide enough information about sepsis for the general public? J Cukurova Anesth Surg. 2021;4(3): 173-181. doi:10.36516/jocass.2021.86
14. Yuksek A, Talih G. Quality of internet-based information on obstetric anesthesia. Ann Med Res. 2019;26(12):2904-07. doi:10.5455/annalsmedres.2019.08.493
15. El-Gilany A. Infodemics of COVID-19 pandemic. Turkish J Public Health. 2020;18(COVID-19 Special):86-95.
16. How to find reliable health information online. National Institute on Aging. Accessed March 19, 2025. https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/healthy-aging/how-find-reliable-health-information-online
17. Yücetin L, Keçecioğlu N, Ersoy FF. Türkiye’de organ bağışı ve nakline bir bakış. Dial Transplant Burn. 2003;14(2):115-118.
18. Zeraatkar D, Obeda M, Ginsberg JS, Hirsh J. The development and validation of an instrument to measure the quality of health research reports in the lay media. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1-10. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4259-y </ol> <p>
Volume 5, Issue 2, 2025
Page : 117-122
_Footer