Online information on chronic pain in 3 countries: an assessment of readability, credibility, and accuracy

To assess the readability, credibility, and accuracy of online information on chronic pain in Australia, Mexico, and Nepal.

We assessed Google-based websites and government health websites about chronic pain for readability (using the Flesch Kincaid Readability Ease tool), credibility (using the Journal of American Medical Association [JAMA] benchmark criteria and Health on the Net Code [HONcode]), and accuracy (using 3 core concepts of pain science education: (1) pain does not mean my body is damaged; (2) thoughts, emotions, and experiences affect pain; and (3) I can retrain my overactive pain system).

We assessed 71 Google-based websites and 15 government websites. There were no significant between-country differences in chronic pain information retrieved through Google for readability, credibility, or accuracy. Based on readability scores, the websites were "fairly difficult to read," suitable for ages 15 to 17 years or grades 10 to 12 years. For credibility, less than 30% of all websites met the full JAMA criteria, and more than 60% were not HONcode certified. For accuracy, all 3 core concepts were present in less than 30% of websites. Moreover, we found that the Australian government websites have low readability but are credible, and the majority provided all 3 core concepts in pain science education. A single Mexican government website had low readability without any core concepts but was credible.

The readability, credibility, and accuracy of online information on chronic pain should be improved internationally to support facilitating better management of chronic pain.