Jonathan M Batchelor1, Yukihiro Ohya. 1. Department of Allergy, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan. jonathan.batchelor@addenbrookes.nhs.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As patients share in the decision-making process regarding treatments they receive, it is important that they can discriminate between reliable and unreliable sources of information about potential treatments. METHODS: In this study, health professionals and patients were asked to assess the reliability of information contained in pamphlets on treatments for asthma and atopic dermatitis using a new Japanese translation of an instrument called DISCERN. The scores given by both groups were analyzed to assess inter-rater agreement. The same DISCERN instrument was used by health professionals to evaluate websites on treatments for atopic dermatitis and the degree of inter-rater agreement was assessed again. RESULTS: There was a greater inter-rater agreement between health professionals than between patients. When health professionals used the instrument to evaluate websites, the final rankings given were consistent between different raters, showing good inter-rater agreement. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that DISCERN is useful for evaluating the reliability of medical information both in pamphlets and on the internet, although it is used more effectively by health professionals than by patients. Further studies are needed on the use of DISCERN by patients in evaluating websites containing medical information.
BACKGROUND: As patients share in the decision-making process regarding treatments they receive, it is important that they can discriminate between reliable and unreliable sources of information about potential treatments. METHODS: In this study, health professionals and patients were asked to assess the reliability of information contained in pamphlets on treatments for asthma and atopic dermatitis using a new Japanese translation of an instrument called DISCERN. The scores given by both groups were analyzed to assess inter-rater agreement. The same DISCERN instrument was used by health professionals to evaluate websites on treatments for atopic dermatitis and the degree of inter-rater agreement was assessed again. RESULTS: There was a greater inter-rater agreement between health professionals than between patients. When health professionals used the instrument to evaluate websites, the final rankings given were consistent between different raters, showing good inter-rater agreement. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that DISCERN is useful for evaluating the reliability of medical information both in pamphlets and on the internet, although it is used more effectively by health professionals than by patients. Further studies are needed on the use of DISCERN by patients in evaluating websites containing medical information.
Authors: Erin R Lutz; Kaitlin L Costello; Minjeong Jo; Constance A Gilet; Jennifer M Hawley; Jessica C Bridgman; Mi-Kyung Song Journal: Nephrol Nurs J Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 0.959
Authors: Grzegorz Zuk; Katharina B Reinisch; Dimitri A Raptis; Sonia Fertsch; Merlin Guggenheim; Adrian F Palma Journal: Interact J Med Res Date: 2017-06-22
Authors: Mohd Shahezwan Abd Wahab; Nurfarah Nadiah Abd Hamid; Ali Omar Yassen; Mohd Javed Naim; Javed Ahamad; Nur Wahida Zulkifli; Farhana Fakhira Ismail; Muhammad Harith Zulkifli; Khang Wen Goh; Long Chiau Ming Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 4.614