PURPOSE: Many patients considering prostate cancer (PCa) treatment options report seeking proton beam therapy (PBT) based in part on information readily available on the Internet. There is, however, potential for considerable variation in Internet health information (IHI). We thus evaluated the characteristics, quality, and accuracy of IHI on PBT for PCa. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We undertook a qualitative research study using snowball-purposive sampling in which we evaluated the top 50 Google search results for "proton prostate cancer." Quality was evaluated on a 5-point scale using the validated 15-question DISCERN instrument. Accuracy was evaluated by comparing IHI with the best available evidence. RESULTS: Thirty-seven IHI websites were included in the final sample. These websites most frequently were patient information/support resources (46%), were focused exclusively on PBT (51%), and had a commercial affiliation (38%). There was a significant difference in quality according to the type of IHI. Substantial inaccuracies were noted in the study sample compared with best available or contextual evidence. CONCLUSIONS: There are shortcomings in quality and accuracy in consumer-oriented IHI on PBT for PCa. Providers must be prepared to educate patients how to critically evaluate IHI related to PBT for PCa to best inform their treatment decisions.
PURPOSE: Many patients considering prostate cancer (PCa) treatment options report seeking proton beam therapy (PBT) based in part on information readily available on the Internet. There is, however, potential for considerable variation in Internet health information (IHI). We thus evaluated the characteristics, quality, and accuracy of IHI on PBT for PCa. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We undertook a qualitative research study using snowball-purposive sampling in which we evaluated the top 50 Google search results for "proton prostate cancer." Quality was evaluated on a 5-point scale using the validated 15-question DISCERN instrument. Accuracy was evaluated by comparing IHI with the best available evidence. RESULTS: Thirty-seven IHI websites were included in the final sample. These websites most frequently were patient information/support resources (46%), were focused exclusively on PBT (51%), and had a commercial affiliation (38%). There was a significant difference in quality according to the type of IHI. Substantial inaccuracies were noted in the study sample compared with best available or contextual evidence. CONCLUSIONS: There are shortcomings in quality and accuracy in consumer-oriented IHI on PBT for PCa. Providers must be prepared to educate patients how to critically evaluate IHI related to PBT for PCa to best inform their treatment decisions.
Authors: Malolan S Rajagopalan; Vineet K Khanna; Yaacov Leiter; Meghan Stott; Timothy N Showalter; Adam P Dicker; Yaacov R Lawrence Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Joshua N Mirkin; William T Lowrance; Andrew H Feifer; John P Mulhall; James E Eastham; Elena B Elkin Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Abhinav Sidana; David J Hernandez; Zhaoyong Feng; Alan W Partin; Bruce J Trock; Surajit Saha; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: Prostate Date: 2011-04-25 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Amy S Harrison; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Timothy N Showalter; Mark D Hurwitz; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Ajay Aggarwal; Daniel Lewis; Arunan Sujenthiran; Susan C Charman; Richard Sullivan; Heather Payne; Malcolm Mason; Jan van der Meulen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 7.038