J M Smart1, D Burling. 1. Department of Clinical Radiology, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Southampton, Hampshire, UK. smartjm@hotmail.com
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether the internet is a useful resource for patients seeking information on radiological procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the world wide web was performed by means of four general search engines (AltaVista, Yahoo!, Infoseek and Excite). Twenty-eight suitable patient-directed websites on arteriography were identified for analysis. The value of this material was measured by establishing inclusion or exclusion of a number of factors relating to the procedure. Readability of the materials was evaluated using the Flesch reading ease score. RESULTS: Advice on preparation was included in 21 (75%) sites. Contraindications were found in 16 (57%) sites, risks in 6 (21%) and aftercare in 25 (89%). Result availability was discussed in 15 (54%) sites, with links to other radiology sites in 13 (46%). Visual aids were used in 6 (21%) sites and a contact address found in 27 (96%). Mean Flesch reading ease score was 57, with 46% of sites below the preferred minimum of 60. CONCLUSIONS: Few sites provide the range of information a patient needs before arriving for a procedure. In addition, the readability of the material on these sites is frequently set at a level incomprehensible to patients with lower levels of literacy. Copyright 2001 The Royal College of Radiologists.
AIM: To determine whether the internet is a useful resource for patients seeking information on radiological procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the world wide web was performed by means of four general search engines (AltaVista, Yahoo!, Infoseek and Excite). Twenty-eight suitable patient-directed websites on arteriography were identified for analysis. The value of this material was measured by establishing inclusion or exclusion of a number of factors relating to the procedure. Readability of the materials was evaluated using the Flesch reading ease score. RESULTS: Advice on preparation was included in 21 (75%) sites. Contraindications were found in 16 (57%) sites, risks in 6 (21%) and aftercare in 25 (89%). Result availability was discussed in 15 (54%) sites, with links to other radiology sites in 13 (46%). Visual aids were used in 6 (21%) sites and a contact address found in 27 (96%). Mean Flesch reading ease score was 57, with 46% of sites below the preferred minimum of 60. CONCLUSIONS: Few sites provide the range of information a patient needs before arriving for a procedure. In addition, the readability of the material on these sites is frequently set at a level incomprehensible to patients with lower levels of literacy. Copyright 2001 The Royal College of Radiologists.
Authors: Dhafer M Alahmari; Fahad M Alsahli; Sami A Alghamdi; Othman I Alomair; Abdulrahman Alghamdi; Mohammed J Alsaadi Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2022-07-28