Evaluating on-line health information for patients with polymyalgia rheumatica: a descriptive study

Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online information on Behçet’s disease

There are concerns over the reliability and comprehensibility of health-related information on the internet. The goal of our research was to analyze the readability, reliability, and quality of information obtained from websites associated with Behçet’s disease (BD). On September 20, 2021, the term BD was used to perform a search on Google, and 100 eligible websites were identified. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Gunning Fog (GFOG) were used to evaluate the readability of the website. The JAMA score was used to assess the websites’ reliability, the DISCERN score and the Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode) were used to assess quality, and Alexa was used to analyze their popularity. Sections of the text were evaluated, and the results revealed that the mean FRES was 35.49±14.42 (difficult) and the mean GFOG was 14.93±3.13 years (very difficult). According to the JAMA scores, 36% of the websites had a high reliability rating and 20% adhered to the HONcode. The readability was found to significantly differ from the reliability of the websites (p<0.05). Moreover, websites with scientific content were found to have higher readability and reliability (p<0.05). The readability of BD-related information on the Internet was found to be considerably higher than that recommended by the National Health Institute’s Grade 6, with moderate reliability and good quality. We believe that online information should have some level of readability and must have reliable content that is appropriate to educate the public, particularly for websites that provide with patient education material.

Assessing the Quality of Online Health Information About Breast Cancer from Chinese Language Websites: Quality Assessment Survey

Background

In China, the internet has become one of the most important ways to obtain information about breast cancer. However, quantitative evaluations of the quality of Chinese health websites and the breast cancer treatment information they publish are lacking.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the quality of Chinese breast cancer websites and the value, suitability, and accuracy of the breast cancer treatment information they publish.

Methods

Chinese breast cancer health websites were searched and manually screened according to their Alexa and Baidu search engine rankings. For each website included in the survey, which was conducted on April 8, 2019, the three most recently published papers on the website that met the inclusion criteria were included for evaluation. Three raters assessed all materials using the LIDA, DISCERN, and Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tools and the Michigan Checklist. Data analysis was completed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 and Microsoft Excel 2010.

Results

This survey included 20 Chinese breast cancer websites and 60 papers on breast cancer treatment. The LIDA tool was used to evaluate the quality of the 20 websites. The LIDA’s scores of the websites (mean=54.85, SD 3.498; total possible score=81) were low. In terms of the layout, color scheme, search facility, browsing facility, integration of nontextual media, submission of comments, declaration of objectives, content production method, and robust method, more than half of the websites scored 0 (never) or 1 (sometimes). For the online breast cancer treatment papers, the scores were generally low. Regarding suitability, 32 (53.33%) papers were evaluated as presenting unsuitable material. Regarding accuracy, the problems were that the papers were largely not original (44/60, 73%) and lacked references (46/60, 77%).

Conclusions

The quality of Chinese breast cancer websites is poor. The color schemes, text settings, user comment submission functions, and language designs should be improved. The quality of Chinese online breast cancer treatment information is poor; the information has little value to users, and pictorial information is scarcely used. The online breast cancer treatment information is accurate but lacks originality and references. Website developers, governments, and medical professionals should play a full role in the design of health websites, the regulation of online health information, and the use of online health information.

Factors Affecting Engagement in Web-Based Health Care Patient Information: Narrative Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Web-based content is rapidly becoming the primary source of health care information. There is a pressing need for web-based health care content to not only be accurate but also be engaging. Improved engagement of people with web-based health care content has the potential to inform as well as influence behavioral change to enable people to make better health care choices. The factors associated with better engagement with web-based health care content have previously not been considered.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study are to identify the factors that affect engagement with web-based health care content and develop a framework to be considered when creating such content.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed and MEDLINE database was performed from January 1, 1946, to January 5, 2020. The reference lists of all included studies were also searched. The Medical Subject Headings database was used to derive the following keywords: "patient information," "online," "internet," "web," and "content." All studies in English pertaining to the factors affecting engagement in web-based health care patient information were included. No restrictions were set on the study type. Analysis of the themes arising from the results was performed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The search yielded 814 articles, of which 56 (6.9%) met our inclusion criteria. The studies ranged from observational and noncontrolled studies to quasi-experimental studies. Overall, there was significant heterogeneity in the types of interventions and outcome assessments, which made quantitative assessment difficult. Consensus among all authors of this study resulted in six categories that formed the basis of a framework to assess the factors affecting engagement in web-based health care content: easy to understand, support, adaptability, accessibility, visuals and content, and credibility and completeness.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of high-quality data relating to the factors that improve the quality of engagement with web-based health care content. Our framework summarizes the reported studies, which may be useful to health care content creators. An evaluation of the utility of web-based content to engage users is of significant importance and may be accessible through tools such as the Net Promoter score. Web 3.0 technology and development of the field of psychographics for health care offer further potential for development. Future work may also involve improvement of the framework through a co-design process.

Comparing quality and readability of online English language information to patient use and perspectives for common rheumatologic conditions

Evaluate quality and readability of online information for common rheumatologic diseases. Compare rheumatology patients' internet use and preferences to an objective evaluation of internet quality and readability. Five common rheumatologic diseases were searched on the web browser Google using English language. The first twenty websites from each of the five searches were evaluated for internet quality (e.g. content that is current, balanced, has specific aims, and is appropriately cited) using the DISCERN criteria and readability using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). The results were contrasted with a survey sent to patients with rheumatic disease. The survey measured patient likeliness to use and trust identified websites. Internet quality was similar (good) for all five diseases searched while readability was poor. There was an inverse relationship between internet quality and readability. Internet quality significantly differed across website sponsor, and readability significantly differed across disease and website sponsor. Common medical website sponsors with the highest combined quality and readability scores were Mayo Clinic and Web MD. Eight hundred and fifty-eight patients were sent a survey, of which 147 (17%) completed. Patients indicated they were most likely to use and trust a Mayo Clinic-sponsored website when compared to other common sponsored websites from our evaluation, followed by the American College of Rheumatology. Although we found good-quality information, all websites evaluated had readability levels above the recommended sixth-grade reading level. The website sponsor with the highest combined readability and quality score was also the most used and trusted by patients. Patients would like more information about credible and trusted websites from their medical providers.

The availability of health information to patients with newly diagnosed polymyalgia rheumatica: results from the Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) Cohort study

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the provision of information to, and seeking of information by, patients newly diagnosed with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in primary care.

Background

PMR is an inflammatory rheumatological condition of older people that can be treated with long-term oral glucocorticoids. Management usually requires the patient to understand the potential complications of treatment and the disease, as well as involvement in reducing treatment dose. This may be complex for patients to understand.

Method

Data are taken from the baseline phase of the PMR Cohort study, which recruited newly diagnosed patients with PMR from UK primary care. Participants provided information on their PMR symptoms, general health and sociodemographics. They also completed items regarding information provision by their doctor at diagnosis, its usefulness and their own search for information.

Findings

A total of 652 people responded to the baseline survey. In all, 399 (62.7%) had received written information from their doctor; 237 (98%) found it useful; 265 (42.9%) would have liked more information; and 311 (48.4%) sought out more information. Those who were not given information and did not seek it out tended to be older and have poorer internet access.

Information provided at diagnosis to patients with PMR is useful, but more than a third did not receive any. This is concerning when PMR requires self-management and vigilance for red flags. Doctors should make use of the resources already available to them to support patients and should specifically ensure that these are available to more elderly patients and those without internet access.