Advertisement
- Abstract
- Materials and Methods
- Results
- Word count and reading grade level
- Website characteristics and demographic information
- General pet obesity information
- Information regarding body condition
- Information regarding risk factors predisposing to obesity
- Information regarding obesity-induced health consequences
- Information regarding treatment and management of obesity
- Between-variable frequency comparisons
- Discussion
- Acknowledgments
- ABBREVIATIONS
- Footnotes
- References
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
1. Kopelman, PG. Obesity as a medical problem. Nature 2000;404:635–643.
-
2. Association for Pet Obesity Prevention. U.S. pet obesity rates plateau and nutritional confusion grows. Available at: www.PetObesityPrevention.org. Accessed May 24, 2019.
-
3. German AJ. The growing problem of obesity in dogs and cats. J Nutr 2006;136:1940–1946.
-
4. Ward E, German AJ, Churchill JA. The Global Pet Obesity Initiative position statement. Available at: static1.squarespace.com/static/597c71d3e58c621d06830e3f/t/5da311c5519bf62664dac512/1570968005938/Global+pet+obesity+initiative+position+statement.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2019.
-
5. German AJ. Obesity prevention and weight maintenance after loss. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2016;46:913–929.
-
6. Kealy RD, Lawler DF, Ballam JM, et al. Effects of diet restriction on life span and age-related changes in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:1315–1320.
-
7. Di Cerbo A, Morales-Medina JC, Palmieri B, et al. Functional foods in pet nutrition: focus on dogs and cats. Res Vet Sci 2017;112:161–166.
-
8. Baldwin K, Bartges J, Buffington T, et al. AAHA nutritional assessment guidelines for dogs and cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2010;46:285–296.
-
9. WSAVA Nutritional Assessment Guidelines Task Force. WSAVA nutritional assessment guidelines. J Small Anim Pract 2011;52:385–396.
-
10. Vandendriessche VL, Picavet P, Hesta M. First detailed nutritional survey in a referral companion animal population. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2017;101:4–14.
-
11. McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Pride C, et al. Prevalence of obesity in dogs examined by Australian veterinary practices and the risk factors involved. Vet Rec 2005;156:695–702.
-
12. Rolph NC, Noble P-JM, German AJ. How often do primary care veterinarians record the overweight status of dogs? J Nutr Sci 2014;3:e58.
-
13. Hofmeister EH, Watson V, Snyder LBC, et al. Validity and client use of information from the World Wide Web regarding veterinary anesthesia in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233:1860–1864.
-
14. Kogan L, Oxley JA, Hellyer P, et al. UK pet owners’ use of the internet for online pet health information. Vet Rec 2018;182:601.
-
15. Fox S, Duggan M. Pew Research Center. Health online 2013. Available at: www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/media/Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2019.
-
16. Prestin A, Vieux SN, Chou W-YS. Is online health activity alive and well or flatlining? Findings from 10 years of the health information national trends survey. J Health Commun 2015;20:790–798.
-
17. Amante DJ, Hogan TP, Pagoto SL, et al. Access to care and use of the internet to search for health information: results from the US National Health Interview Survey. J Med Internet Res 2015;17:106–127.
-
18. Kogan LR, Schoenfeld-Tacher R, Gould L, et al. Providing an information prescription in veterinary medical clinics: a pilot study. J Med Libr Assoc 2014;102:41–46.
-
19. Jehn CT, Perzak DE, Cook JL, et al. Usefulness, completeness, and accuracy of web sites providing information on osteoarthritis in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223:1272–1275.
-
20. Klare GR. The measurement of readability: useful information for communicators. ACM J Comput Doc 2000;24:107–121.
-
21. Royal KD, Sheats MK, Kedrowicz AA. Readability evaluations of veterinary client handouts and implications for patient care. Top Companion Anim Med 2018;33:58–61.
-
22. Taggart R, Wardlaw J, Horstman CL, et al. An analysis of the quality of canine cranial cruciate ligament disease information available on the internet. Vet Surg 2010;39:278–283.
-
23. WSAVA Global Nutrition Committee. The savvy cat owner's guide: nutrition on the internet. Available at: wsava.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/The-Savvy-Cat-Owner-s-Guide-to-Nutrition-on-the-Internet.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2019.
-
24. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1277–1288.
-
25. Eysenbach G, Köhler C. 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 2002;324:573–577.
-
26. Advanced Web Ranking. Google organic CTR history. Available at: www.advancedwebranking.com/ctrstudy/. Accessed May 4, 2020.
-
27. De Swert K. Center for Politics and Communication. Calculating inter-coder reliability in media content analysis using Krippendorff's alpha. Available at: www.polcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/ICR01022012.pdf. Accessed Sep 4, 2018.
-
28. Edmunds MR, Barry RJ, Denniston AK. Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information. JAMA Ophthalmol 2013;131:1610–1616.
-
29. The American Medical Association Foundation. Health literacy and patient safety: help patients understand. Available at: www.pogoe.org/sites/default/files/Health%20Literacy%20-%20Reducing%20the%20Risk%20by%20Designing%20a%20Safe,%20Shame-Free%20Health%20Care%20Environment.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2020.
-
30. Kher A, Johnson S, Griffith R. Readability assessment of online patient education material on congestive heart failure. Adv Prev Med 2017;2017:9780317.
-
31. Sobolewski J, Bryan JN, Duval D, et al. Readability of consent forms in veterinary clinical research. J Vet Intern Med 2019;33:350–355.
-
32. CDC. A guide for creating easy-to-understand materials. Available at: www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/pdf/simply_put.pdf. Accessed Apr 26, 2019.
-
33. German AJ, Woods GRT, Holden SL, et al. Dangerous trends in pet obesity. Vet Rec 2018;182:25.
-
34. Rosenstock IM. The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Educ Monogr 1974;2:354–386.
-
35. Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Monogr 1974;2:328–335.
-
36. Yam PS, Naughton G, Butowski CF, et al. Inaccurate assessment of canine body condition score, bodyweight, and pet food labels: a potential cause of inaccurate feeding. Vet Sci 2017;4:30–37.
-
37. Bland IM, Guthrie-Jones A, Taylor RD, et al. Dog obesity: owner attitudes and behaviour. Prev Vet Med 2009;92:333–340.
-
38. Colliard L, Ancel J, Benet J-J, et al. Risk factors for obesity in dogs in France. J Nutr 2006;136:1951S–1954S.
-
39. Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk CA, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for obesity in adult dogs from private US veterinary practices. Int J Appl Res Vet Med 2006;4:177–186.
-
40. Chauvet A, Laclair J, Elliott DA, et al. Incorporation of exercise, using an underwater treadmill, and active client education into a weight management program for obese dogs. Can Vet J 2011;52:491–496.
-
41. German AJ, Holden SL, Bissot T, et al. Dietary energy restriction and successful weight loss in obese client-owned dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2007;21:1174–1180.
-
42. Davies M, Kawaguchi S. Pregeneral anaesthetic blood screening of dogs and cats attending a UK practice. Vet Rec 2014;174:506.
-
43. Kipperman BS, German AJ. The responsibility of veterinarians to address companion animal obesity. Animals (Basel) 2018;8:143–151.
-
44. Tarkosova D, Story MM, Rand JS, et al. Feline obesity – prevalence, risk factors, pathogenesis, associated conditions and assessment: a review. Vet Med (Praha) 2016;61:295–307.
Advertisement
Readability and content of online pet obesity information
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To assess the readability of pet obesity information, document the presence and absence of types of pet obesity information, and perform comparisons between dog and cat obesity information content on websites.
SAMPLE
68 websites containing pet obesity content.
PROCEDURES
Websites were systematically retrieved with a search engine and predefined search terms and phrases. For each website, pet obesity information was scored by use of 2 established readability tools: the simple measure of gobbledygook (SMOG) index and Flesch-Kincaid (FK) readability test. A directed content analysis was conducted with a codebook that assessed the presence or absence of 103 variables across 5 main topics related to pet obesity on each website.
RESULTS
The mean reading grade levels determined with the SMOG index and FK readability test were 16.61 and 9.07, respectively. Instructions for weight measurement and body condition scoring were found infrequently, as were nonmodifiable risk factors. There was a greater focus on addressing obesity through dietary changes than through increasing physical activity. Few websites recommended regular follow-up appointments with veterinarians. Weight management information and the emphasis on owners’ commitment to achieve their pet's weight loss targets differed among dog- and cat-focused websites.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Results indicated that pet obesity information on the studied websites was largely inaccessible to pet owners owing to the associated high reading grade levels. Readers of that information would benefit from clarification of information gaps along with provision of guidance regarding navigating online information and counseling on the importance of nutritional and dietary reassessments for individual pets performed by veterinarians.
Contributor Notes
Powered by PubFactory