European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2023
Fetal growth restriction: How reliable is information available to patients on Google? A systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hall Megan, Wu Lindsay, Nanda Surabhi, Bakalis Spyros, Shennan Andrew, Story Lisa
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the quality, readability and credibility of English language webpages offering patient information on fetal growth restriction.
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of patient information was undertaken on Google with location services and browser history disabled. Websites from the first page were included providing they gave at least 300 words of health information on fetal growth restriction aimed at patients. Validated assessment of readability, credibility and quality were undertaken. An accuracy assessment was performed based on international guidance. Characteristics were tabulated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one websites including 30 different texts were included. No pages had a reading age of 11 years or less, none were credible, and only one was of high quality. Median accuracy rating was 9/24.
CONCLUSION: Patients cannot rely on Google as a source of information on fetal growth restriction. As well as being difficult to read, information tends to be low quality, low accuracy and not credible. Healthcare professionals must consider how to enable access to high-quality patient information and give time for discussion of information patients have found: failure to do so may disenfranchise patients.
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of patient information was undertaken on Google with location services and browser history disabled. Websites from the first page were included providing they gave at least 300 words of health information on fetal growth restriction aimed at patients. Validated assessment of readability, credibility and quality were undertaken. An accuracy assessment was performed based on international guidance. Characteristics were tabulated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one websites including 30 different texts were included. No pages had a reading age of 11 years or less, none were credible, and only one was of high quality. Median accuracy rating was 9/24.
CONCLUSION: Patients cannot rely on Google as a source of information on fetal growth restriction. As well as being difficult to read, information tends to be low quality, low accuracy and not credible. Healthcare professionals must consider how to enable access to high-quality patient information and give time for discussion of information patients have found: failure to do so may disenfranchise patients.