Literature DB >> 25578872

Patient-focused websites related to stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a DISCERN quality analysis.

Omar Felipe Dueñas-Garcia1, Padmasini Kandadai, Michael K Flynn, Danielle Patterson, Jyot Saini, Katharine O'Dell.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The quality of information related to pelvic floor disorders is varied and understudied. Using a validated instrument we evaluated the quality of selected websites addressing treatment options for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
METHODS: English-language, patient-focused professional, governmental, and consumer websites related to POP and SUI were identified using the International Urogynecology Association (IUGA) list of continence societies worldwide, search terms, and provider nomination. Websites were evaluated by 10 providers at an academic medical center, representing urogynecology (6), urology (3), and general gynecology (1). Quality assessment utilized the DISCERN instrument, a validated instrument consisting of 16 questions addressing the quality of consumer health information.
RESULTS: Websites of 13 organizations met inclusion criteria and were assessed, 12 relating to SUI and 8 to POP. The websites with the highest mean total DISCERN score for POP were those of the IUGA, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, and the American Urogynecologic Association, and for SUI, the National Association For Continence, the American Urological Association, and the IUGA. High correlations were obtained for the total DISCERN score and the overall quality scores for POP (0.76) and SUI (0.82). The most commonly omitted components of the DISCERN instrument were a clear statement of the content objectives, references or sources of the content, and a discussion of what patients could expect if they opted for no intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Available English-language professional websites written to inform patients about management choices for SUI and POP miss key components of quality patient information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25578872     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2615-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  16 in total

1.  The JAMA Network Website: Today's Content on the Future of Medical Publishing.

Authors:  Margaret A Winker; Matt Herron; Elizabeth Jones; Howard Bauchner
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Use of the DISCERN instrument by patients and health professionals to assess information resources on treatments for asthma and atopic dermatitis.

Authors:  Jonathan M Batchelor; Yukihiro Ohya
Journal:  Allergol Int       Date:  2009-01-25       Impact factor: 5.836

3.  Evaluating internet health resources in ear, nose, and throat surgery.

Authors:  Ross A Goslin; Hassan A Elhassan
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  The quality of mental health information commonly searched for on the Internet.

Authors:  John M Grohol; Joseph Slimowicz; Rebecca Granda
Journal:  Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw       Date:  2013-11-16

5.  Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association.

Authors:  M A Winker; A Flanagin; B Chi-Lum; J White; K Andrews; R L Kennett; C D DeAngelis; R A Musacchio
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 Mar 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Assessing Internet health information on female pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  Kamran P Sajadi; Howard B Goldman; Farzeen Firoozi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Evaluating the quality and readability of thyroplasty information on the Internet.

Authors:  Kimberly Ting; Amanda Hu
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 2.009

8.  Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid?

Authors:  T Aldairy; S Laverick; G T McIntyre
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 9.  Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet.

Authors:  Shane Ciaran O'Neill; Joseph Frederick Baker; Conall Fitzgerald; Christina Fleming; Fiachra Rowan; Damien Byrne; Keith Synnott
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Variability of patient spine education by Internet search engine.

Authors:  George M Ghobrial; Angud Mehdi; Mitchell Maltenfort; Ashwini D Sharan; James S Harrop
Journal:  Clin Neurol Neurosurg       Date:  2014-01-04       Impact factor: 1.876

View more
  4 in total

1.  Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet.

Authors:  Vishalli Ghai; Vasilios Pergialiotis; Haider Jan; James M N Duffy; Stergios K Doumouchtsis
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Women's Experience with Stress Urinary Incontinence: Insights from Social Media Analytics.

Authors:  Gabriela Gonzalez; Kristina Vaculik; Carine Khalil; Yuliya Zektser; Corey Arnold; Christopher V Almario; Brennan M R Spiegel; Jennifer T Anger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 7.600

3.  Evaluating the Quality of Health Information in a Changing Digital Ecosystem.

Authors:  Alla Keselman; Catherine Arnott Smith; Anita C Murcko; David R Kaufman
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 5.428

4.  User testing a patient information resource about potential complications of vaginally inserted synthetic mesh.

Authors:  Nikolina Angelova; Louise Taylor; Lorna McKee; Naomi Fearns; Tracey Mitchell
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 2.809

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.