ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality and readability of online health content regarding the ocular health effects of blue light.MethodsFive commercial and five non-commercial websites with content regarding the ocular effect of blue light were examined. Quality evaluations were conducted using a 14-question assessment composed by the authors and the 16-question DISCERN instrument. Website accountability was evaluated via the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks. Readability was determined using an online tool (Readable). Correlational and comparative analyses were conducted where appropriate.ResultsThe average questionnaire score was 84 (standard deviation [SD] ± 17.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 77.32-90.68) out of 136 points (61.8%). Significant differences in quality were identified between websites (p = 0.02), with Healthline achieving the highest score. Compared to commercial websites, non-commercial websites trended toward having significantly higher median questionnaire scores (p = 0.06). Zero websites achieved all four JAMA benchmarks. The average reading grade level of content was 10.43 (SD ± 1.15, 95% CI 9.60 - 11.25), with differences between websites trending toward significance (p = 0.09). There was no correlation between resource readability and quality (ρ = 0.28; p = 0.43) or accountability (ρ = 0.47; p = 0.17).ConclusionsThere remain substantial deficiencies in the quality, accountability, and readability of online content concerning the effect of blue light on ocular health. Clinicians and patients must recognize such issues when recommending and consuming these resources.