Journal of surgical oncology · 2022
Quality and readability assessment of online patient information on cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Rouhi Armaun D, Ghanem Yazid K, Hoeltzel Gerard D, Miura John T, Aarons Cary B, Williams Noel N, Dumon Kristoffel R, Karakousis Giorgos C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aim to assess the quality and readability of online information available to patients considering cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC).
METHODS: The top three search engines (Google, Bing, and Yahoo) were searched in March 2022. Websites were classified as academic, hospital-affiliated, foundation/advocacy, commercial, or unspecified. Quality of information was assessed using the JAMA benchmark criteria (0-4) and DISCERN tool (16-80), and the presence of a Health On the Net code (HONcode) seal. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease score.
RESULTS: Fifty unique websites were included. The average JAMA and DISCERN scores of all websites were 0.72 ± 1.14 and 39.58 ± 13.71, respectively. Foundation/advocacy websites had significantly higher JAMA mean score than commercial (p = 0.044), academic (p < 0.001), and hospital-affiliated websites (p = 0.001). Foundation/advocacy sites had a significantly higher DISCERN mean score than hospital-affiliated (p = 0.035) and academic websites (p = 0.030). The HONcode seal was present in 4 (8%) websites analyzed. Readability was difficult and at the level of college students.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of patient-oriented online information on CRS-HIPEC is poor and available resources may not be comprehensible to the general public. Patients seeking information on CRS-HIPEC should be directed to sites affiliated with foundation/advocacy organizations.
METHODS: The top three search engines (Google, Bing, and Yahoo) were searched in March 2022. Websites were classified as academic, hospital-affiliated, foundation/advocacy, commercial, or unspecified. Quality of information was assessed using the JAMA benchmark criteria (0-4) and DISCERN tool (16-80), and the presence of a Health On the Net code (HONcode) seal. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease score.
RESULTS: Fifty unique websites were included. The average JAMA and DISCERN scores of all websites were 0.72 ± 1.14 and 39.58 ± 13.71, respectively. Foundation/advocacy websites had significantly higher JAMA mean score than commercial (p = 0.044), academic (p < 0.001), and hospital-affiliated websites (p = 0.001). Foundation/advocacy sites had a significantly higher DISCERN mean score than hospital-affiliated (p = 0.035) and academic websites (p = 0.030). The HONcode seal was present in 4 (8%) websites analyzed. Readability was difficult and at the level of college students.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of patient-oriented online information on CRS-HIPEC is poor and available resources may not be comprehensible to the general public. Patients seeking information on CRS-HIPEC should be directed to sites affiliated with foundation/advocacy organizations.