| Literature DB >> 30030210 |
Mikyoung A Lee1, Cha-Nam Shin2, Kyungeh An3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Websites are common sources of health information to stroke survivors and caregivers for continual management of stroke and its long-term sequelae. The presence of risk factors and mortality rates related to stroke are high in Korean Americans. A vast majority of this group are active Web users and rely on the Web-based information due to lack of insurance and, thus, limited access to long-term stroke care. Thus, it is critical to evaluate existing stroke websites for their trustworthiness, readability, and suitability.Entities:
Keywords: readability; stroke; suitability; trustworthiness; website evaluation
Year: 2018 PMID: 30030210 PMCID: PMC6076368 DOI: 10.2196/10440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Interact J Med Res ISSN: 1929-073X
Trustworthiness of stroke websites by the National Library of Medicine criteria.
| Evaluation criteriaa | Frequency, | ICCb | ||
| .969 | ||||
| Superior (2) | The published date of the information is indicated and is less than 1 year old (last year) | 13 (31) | ||
| Adequate (1) | The published date of information is indicated, but is older than 1 year | 20 (48) | ||
| Not suitable (0) | No indication | 9 (21) | ||
| .980 | ||||
| Superior (2) | The publisher’s information (individuals or organizations) and contact information can be easily found | 28 (67) | ||
| Adequate (1) | The publisher’s information (individuals or organizations) can be found. But there is no contact information | 5 (12) | ||
| Not suitable (0) | No indication | 9 (21) | ||
| .987 | ||||
| Superior (2) | The information is drawn based on sound medical research, and the information sources are cited | 14 (33) | ||
| Adequate (1) | The information sources are cited but not based on medical research | 7 (17) | ||
| Not suitable (0) | No indication | 21 (50) | ||
aScore shown in parentheses.
bICC: intraclass correlation coefficient.
The evaluation of the stroke websites based on Suitability Assessment of Materials.
| Category and criteria | Frequency, n (%) | ICCa | Converted %b | |||
| Not suitable (0) | Adequate (1) | Superior (2) | ||||
| Purpose | 0 (0) | 8 (19) | 34 (81) | .626 | 90.5 | |
| Scope | 2 (5) | 13 (31) | 27 (64) | .896 | 79.8 | |
| Content topics | 6 (14) | 25 (60) | 11 (26) | .875 | 56.0 | |
| Summary and review | 23 (55) | 8 (19) | 11 (26) | .993 | 35.7c | |
| Average | 65.5 | |||||
| Reading grade level | 19 (45) | 21 (50) | 2 (5) | .810 | 29.8c | |
| Writing Style | 1 (2) | 14 (33) | 27 (64) | .859 | 81.0 | |
| Sentence construction | 1 (2) | 17 (41) | 24 (57) | .727 | 77.4 | |
| Vocabulary | 2 (5) | 19 (45) | 21 (50) | .746 | 72.6 | |
| Learning enhancement by advance organizers | 6 (14) | 3 (7) | 33 (79) | .962 | 82.1 | |
| Average | 68.6 | |||||
| Cover graphic | 20 (48) | 13 (31) | 9 (21) | .950 | 36.9c | |
| Type of illustrations | 14 (33) | 15 (36) | 13 (31) | .950 | 48.8 | |
| Relevance of illustrations | 15 (36) | 11 (26) | 16 (38) | .975 | 51.2 | |
| Graphical direction: lists, tables, charts, and forms | 25 (60) | 10 (24) | 7 (17) | .956 | 28.6c | |
| Captions are used to announce or explain graphics | 14 (33) | 17 (41) | 11 (26) | .976 | 46.4 | |
| Average | 42.4 | |||||
| Typography | 1 (2) | 9 (21) | 32 (76) | .863 | 86.9 | |
| Layout | 1 (2) | 12 (29) | 29 (69) | .813 | 83.3 | |
| Subheadings and chunking | 4 (10) | 4 (10) | 34 (81) | .965 | 85.7 | |
| Average | 85.3 | |||||
| Interaction included in the text or graphics | 16 (38) | 15 (36) | 11 (26) | .967 | 44.0 | |
| Desired behavior patterns are modeled | 14 (33) | 12 (29) | 16 (38) | .975 | 52.4 | |
| Motivation | 16 (38) | 14 (33) | 12 (29) | .965 | 45.2 | |
| Average | 47.2 | |||||
| Cultural match: logic, language, experience | 24 (57) | 8 (19) | 10 (24) | .992 | 33.3c | |
| Cultural image and examples | 29 (69) | 10 (24) | 3 (7) | .987 | 19.0c | |
| Multiple languages translation | 36 (86) | 0 (0) | 6 (14) | .994 | 14.3c | |
| Average | 22.2c | |||||
| Overall average | 55.7 | |||||
aICC: intraclass correlation coefficient.
bConverted Percent=([n of websites×0 point]+[n of websites×1 point]+[n of websites×2 points])/total possible best score (84=42 websites×2 points)×100. Interpretation: 70%-100%=superior; 40%-69%=adequate; 0%-39% =not suitable.
cInformation rated as “not suitable” per criterion across the evaluated websites.