Literature DB >> 25370600

Quality of information available via the internet for patients with head and neck cancer: are we improving?

James Best1, Jameel Muzaffar2, Alistair Mitchell-Innes2.   

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the type, content, accessibility and quality of information available via the internet for patients with head and neck cancer. The Google search engine was used to generate lists of the first 100 websites for general head and neck cancer and the first ten for head and neck cancers by anatomical location (160 total). Websites were evaluated with the validated DISCERN and LIDA instruments, the SMOG (Simple measure of gobbledygook) readability score and against the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) criteria. 40 of the 160 websites ranked by Google were suitable for analysis. Seven websites (17.5%) partially or fully achieved all four JAMA benchmarks and only one (2.5%) site achieved none. 28 (70%) included reference to quality of life factors. Correlations were identified between Google site rank and all four of our appraisal tools; LIDA (-0.966, p = 0.006), JAMA (-5.93, p = 0.028), DISCERN (-0.568, p = 0.037) and SMOG (4.678, p = 0.04). Google site rank and both government run sites (-35.38, p = 0.034) and sites run by universities or hospitals (-27.32, p = 0.016) also showed an association. Comparing our observations with those of Riordain in 2008, there has been little improvement in the quality of head and neck cancer information available online over this time. Given the variability in quality of information online, patients would benefit from being directed to reliable websites by clinicians.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Head and neck cancer; Internet; Patient information; Quality of information; Quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25370600     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-014-3349-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  8 in total

1.  Internet information on colorectal cancer: commercialization and lack of quality control.

Authors:  M S Sajid; M Iftikhar; R S Monteiro; A F W Miles; W G A Woods; M K Baig
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2007-07-20       Impact factor: 3.788

2.  Perspectives on quality and content of information on the internet for adolescents with cancer.

Authors:  Jennifer N Stinson; Meghan White; Vicky Breakey; Amy Lee Chong; Isabella Mak; Kazuo Koekebakker Low; Anja Koekebakker Low
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 3.167

3.  Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware.

Authors:  W M Silberg; G D Lundberg; R A Musacchio
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-04-16       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  A readability assessment of online stroke information.

Authors:  Nikhil Sharma; Andreas Tridimas; Paul R Fitzsimmons
Journal:  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  A readability assessment of online Parkinson's disease information.

Authors:  P R Fitzsimmons; B D Michael; J L Hulley; G O Scott
Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Edinb       Date:  2010-12

6.  The quality of patient-orientated internet information on colorectal cancer.

Authors:  A Al-Bahrani; S Plusa
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.788

7.  Head and neck cancer information on the internet: type, accuracy and content.

Authors:  Richeal Ni Riordain; Christine McCreary
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 5.337

8.  Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting.

Authors:  Deborah Charnock; Sasha Shepperd
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2004-05-20
  8 in total
  6 in total

1.  Accuracy and Readability of Websites on Kidney and Bladder Cancers.

Authors:  Samy A Azer; Maha M Alghofaili; Rana M Alsultan; Najla S Alrumaih
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Considerations for developing supportive care interventions for survivors of head and neck cancer: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Laura B Oswald; Brandy Arredondo; Carley Geiss; Taylor F D Vigoureux; Aasha I Hoogland; Christine H Chung; Jameel Muzaffar; Krupal B Patel; Brian D Gonzalez; Heather S L Jim; Kedar Kirtane
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2022-07-03       Impact factor: 3.955

3.  Online Health Information Regarding Male Infertility: An Evaluation of Readability, Suitability, and Quality.

Authors:  Stephanie Robins; Helena J Barr; Rachel Idelson; Sylvie Lambert; Phyllis Zelkowitz
Journal:  Interact J Med Res       Date:  2016-10-21

4.  Content and Quality of Websites for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: An Environmental Scan.

Authors:  Michelle Smekal; Sarah Gil; Maoliosa Donald; Heather Beanlands; Sharon Straus; Gwen Herrington; Dwight Sparkes; Lori Harwood; Allison Tong; Allan Grill; Karen Tu; Blair Waldvogel; Chantel Large; Claire Large; Marta Novak; Matthew James; Meghan Elliott; Maria Delgado; Scott Brimble; Susan Samuel; Brenda R Hemmelgarn
Journal:  Can J Kidney Health Dis       Date:  2019-07-30

5.  Readability and quality assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to nasal septoplasty.

Authors:  Elysia M Grose; Connor P Holmes; Kaishan A Aravinthan; Vincent Wu; John M Lee
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2021-03-17

6.  Readability of the American, Canadian, and British Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Societies' Patient Materials.

Authors:  Joo Hyun Kim; Elysia Grose; Justine Philteos; David Forner; Christopher W Noel; Vincent Wu; Antoine Eskander
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 5.591

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.