| Literature DB >> 28073735 |
Tommy Carlsson1, Ove Axelsson1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing medically induced second-trimester abortions feel insufficiently informed and use the Web for supplemental information. However, it is still unclear how people who have experience with pregnancy termination appraise the quality of patient information websites about medically induced second-trimester abortions, whether they consider the websites suitable for patients, and what issues they experience with the websites.Entities:
Keywords: Internet; consumer health information; induced abortion; information literacy; popular works; second pregnancy trimester
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28073735 PMCID: PMC5263864 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Search terms and number of hits.
| Search terms | Bing | |
| Abortion due to a heart defect | 16,900 | 11,500 |
| Angel mum | 36,600 | 44,100 |
| Grieving work after losing a baby | 45,800 | 56,800 |
| How a late abortion is done | 1,770,000 | 212,000 |
| How great is the risk that a fetal heart defect is repeated | 16,900 | 6490 |
| How to manage a late abortion | 19,400 | 123,000 |
| Late abortion | 81,700 | 454,000 |
| Late abortion after discovery in routine ultrasound | 63,300 | 132,000 |
| Late termination of pregnancy | 12,800 | 8610 |
| Miscarriage after late abortion | 13,100 | 119,000 |
| Pregnant after late abortion | 174,000 | 193,000 |
| Termination | 194,000 | 618,000 |
| Termination in week 20 | 72,100 | 83,400 |
| Total hits (all search terms) | 2,516,600 | 2,061,900 |
Figure 1Sampling procedure.
Figure 2Number of relevant and irrelevant hits among the first 50 hits in Google (G) and Bing (B).
Interrater reliability, assessment means, and standard deviations for the websites from the health care system (n=18) and private organizations (n=24).
| Instrument or tool (maximum achievable score) | Interrater reliability | Health care system | Private organizations | Total | |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |||
| Reliability (40) | 0.79 | 22.4a (5.3) | 19.6a (5.8) | 20.8 (5.7) | |
| Information about treatment (35) | 0.77 | 11.9 (4.1) | 14.0 (5.4) | 13.1 (5.0) | |
| Overall quality (5) | 0.83 | 2.2 (1.2) | 2.1 (1.1) | 2.2 (1.1) | |
| Total score (80) | 0.80 | 36.5 (8.9) | 35.7 (10.7) | 36.0 (10.0) | |
| Total score (100) | 0.78 | 44.6a (11.5) | 36.6a (15.3) | 40.0 (14.3) | |
aP<.05.
bEQIP: Ensuring Quality Information for Patients.
Figure 3Mean scores and 95% CIs for each question in the DISCERN instrument. Comparisons are presented between websites from the health care system and private organizations (* P<.05, ** P<.01).
Figure 4Mean scores and 95% CIs for each question in the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool. Comparisons are presented between websites from the health care system and private organizations (* P<.05, ** P<.01).
Websites that were recommended by 1, 2, 3 or all assessors from the health care system (n=18) and private organizations (n=24).
| Recommended by number of assessors (n=4) | Health care system (n=18) | Private organizations (n=24) | Total (n=42) |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| 1 assessor | 2 (11) | 7 (29) | 9 (21) |
| 2 assessors | 4 (22) | 2 (8) | 6 (14) |
| 3 assessors | 3 (17) | 3 (13) | 6 (14) |
| 4 assessors | 1 (6) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) |
Issues reported by at least one assessor, for websites from the health care system (n=18) and private organizations (n=24), identified in the open-ended question.
| Reported issue | Health care system (n=18) | Private organizations (n=24) | Total (N=42) | Illustrative quote | |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |||
| 18 (100) | 14 (58) | 32 (76) | Hardly any information on the website | ||
| The abortion procedure | 10 (56) | 5 (21) | 15 (36) | Does not address the procedure | |
| Emotional difficulties | 5 (28) | 3 (13) | 8 (19) | Scanty information on the emotional side of things | |
| Reasons for abortion | 2 (11) | 3 (13) | 5 (12) | No info on reasons for late abortion | |
| Professional support | 2 (11) | 2 (8) | 4 (10) | No info on what help is available | |
| The fetus | 3 (17) | 1 (4) | 4 (10) | No mention at all of what happens to the fetus | |
| Medications | 1 (6) | 1 (4) | 2 (5) | No info on how Mifepristone impacts the fetus | |
| Follow-up care | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | 1 (2) | Nothing on aftercare | |
| No contact information for health care services | 1 (6) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | Does not say who to contact | |
| Poor design | 4 (22) | 11 (46) | 15 (36) | Disastrous interface | |
| Disrespectful and belittling tone | 4 (22) | 5 (21) | 9 (21) | It is like a sermon, and has a negative and arrogant tone | |
| Poor language | 1 (6) | 8 (33) | 9 (21) | Very difficult to understand what it says, as the words hardly form sentences | |
| Biased against abortions | 0 (0) | 8 (33) | 8 (19) | Biased website, clearly against abortion | |
| Inaccurate information | 0 (0) | 5 (21) | 5 (12) | Description of late abortion is completely wrong | |
| Irrelevant information | 2 (11) | 3 (13) | 5 (12) | No relevant information at all | |
| Untrustworthy or unclear source of the information | 0 (0) | 3 (13) | 3 (7) | No info on who produced the site | |