Olivia Monton1, Sylvie Lambert2, Eric Belzile1, Dahlal Mohr-Elzeki3. 1. St. Mary's Research Centre, 3830 Lacombe Ave, Montreal, QC, H3T 1M5, Canada. 2. St. Mary's Research Centre, 3830 Lacombe Ave, Montreal, QC, H3T 1M5, Canada; McGill University, Ingram School of Nursing, 680 Sherbrooke West, Montreal, QC, H3A 2M7. Electronic address: sylvie.lambert@mcgill.ca. 3. McGill University Health Centre, 1001 Decarie Blvd, Montreal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the suitability, readability, quality, and usefulness of publicly available online resources for cancer caregivers. METHODS: Resources identified through a Google search and environmental scan were evaluated using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), an online readability text analysis tool, the DISCERN (quality), and caregivers' unmet needs checklist (usefulness). Descriptive analyses and cluster analysis to identify the group of resources with the highest SAM and DISCERN scores were performed. RESULTS: 55 resources were evaluated. The suitability of 48/55 (87%) resources were categorized as adequate (SAM scores 40-69), with no resources ranking in the superior category (SAM scores > 70%). The readability of 51/55 (93%) resources exceeded 9th grade reading level. The mean quality score as a percentage was 49% (SD 11.5). On average resources addressed 9.9/33 unmet needs (SD = 5.8). A high-quality cluster was identified and included 15 (27%) websites. CONCLUSION: Online resources for cancer caregivers are not optimal in terms of their suitability, readability, quality, and usefulness. The highest ranked resources include, Cancer Council Australia's booklet, Caring for Someone with Cancer, and the American Cancer Society's webpages, Caregivers and Families. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Study findings will allow healthcare professionals to better address cancer caregivers' needs by recommending the most optimal resources.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the suitability, readability, quality, and usefulness of publicly available online resources for cancer caregivers. METHODS: Resources identified through a Google search and environmental scan were evaluated using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), an online readability text analysis tool, the DISCERN (quality), and caregivers' unmet needs checklist (usefulness). Descriptive analyses and cluster analysis to identify the group of resources with the highest SAM and DISCERN scores were performed. RESULTS: 55 resources were evaluated. The suitability of 48/55 (87%) resources were categorized as adequate (SAM scores 40-69), with no resources ranking in the superior category (SAM scores > 70%). The readability of 51/55 (93%) resources exceeded 9th grade reading level. The mean quality score as a percentage was 49% (SD 11.5). On average resources addressed 9.9/33 unmet needs (SD = 5.8). A high-quality cluster was identified and included 15 (27%) websites. CONCLUSION: Online resources for cancer caregivers are not optimal in terms of their suitability, readability, quality, and usefulness. The highest ranked resources include, Cancer Council Australia's booklet, Caring for Someone with Cancer, and the American Cancer Society's webpages, Caregivers and Families. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Study findings will allow healthcare professionals to better address cancer caregivers' needs by recommending the most optimal resources.