Emily Warren1, Katharine Footman2, Michela Tinelli3, Martin McKee4, Cécile Knai5. 1. Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK. Electronic address: Emily.warren@lshtm.ac.uk. 2. Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK. Electronic address: Katharine.footman@lshtm.ac.uk. 3. LSE Health and Social Care, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK. Electronic address: m.tinelli@lse.ac.uk. 4. Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK. Electronic address: martin.mckee@lshtm.ac.uk. 5. Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK. Electronic address: cecile.knai@lshtm.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate commonly used cancer websites' information provision, we developed and applied an Information Comprehensiveness Tool to breast and prostate cancer websites. METHODS: We first collated questions from a systematic literature review on patient information needs. We then classified the questions in terms of spectrum of care, theme, and nature of question. "Breast cancer" and "prostate cancer" were typed into Google, and websites listed on the first page of results were selected. Two researchers, blind to each others' scores, assessed the same websites using the coding system. Each question was scored on a 3-point scale as not (0%), partially (50%) and fully (100%) answered by two researchers. Average scores were calculated across all questions. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. RESULTS: We identified 79 general, 5 breast, and 5 prostate cancer questions. Inter-rater reliability was good, with an intraclass coefficient of 0.756 (95% CIs 0.729-0.781). 17 questions were not answered thoroughly by any website. Questions about "future planning", "monitoring", and "decision-making" were discussed least. Biomedical questions scored highest. CONCLUSIONS: More comprehensive information needs to be provided on breast and prostate cancer websites. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This ICT can improve cancer information online and enable patients to engage more actively regarding their information needs.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate commonly used cancer websites' information provision, we developed and applied an Information Comprehensiveness Tool to breast and prostate cancer websites. METHODS: We first collated questions from a systematic literature review on patient information needs. We then classified the questions in terms of spectrum of care, theme, and nature of question. "Breast cancer" and "prostate cancer" were typed into Google, and websites listed on the first page of results were selected. Two researchers, blind to each others' scores, assessed the same websites using the coding system. Each question was scored on a 3-point scale as not (0%), partially (50%) and fully (100%) answered by two researchers. Average scores were calculated across all questions. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. RESULTS: We identified 79 general, 5 breast, and 5 prostate cancer questions. Inter-rater reliability was good, with an intraclass coefficient of 0.756 (95% CIs 0.729-0.781). 17 questions were not answered thoroughly by any website. Questions about "future planning", "monitoring", and "decision-making" were discussed least. Biomedical questions scored highest. CONCLUSIONS: More comprehensive information needs to be provided on breast and prostate cancer websites. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This ICT can improve cancer information online and enable patients to engage more actively regarding their information needs.
Authors: Iris M Kanera; Catherine A W Bolman; Roy A Willems; Ilse Mesters; Lilian Lechner Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Yan Li; Shan Ye; Yidong Zhou; Feng Mao; Hailing Guo; Yan Lin; Xiaohui Zhang; Songjie Shen; Na Shi; Xiaojie Wang; Qiang Sun Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Roy A Willems; Catherine A W Bolman; Ilse Mesters; Iris M Kanera; Audrey A J M Beaulen; Lilian Lechner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 4.430