Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2003
Finding the best from the rest: evaluation of the quality of patient information on the Internet.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Gilliam A D, Speake W J, Scholefield J H, Beckingham I J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Information is of utmost importance for patients at risk of developing cancer who require regular screening. Quality assessment is vital to ensure correct information is published on the Internet.
METHOD: A postal questionnaire was sent to patients under follow-up for Barrett's oesophagus and colonic polyps. Questions related to computer/Internet access, where patients had previously sought information, whether web-sites would be of use, and what information they would like displayed. A review of on-line patient literature for Barrett's oesophagus and colorectal adenomas was performed.
RESULTS: Of the 200 questionnaires sent, 161 patients responded (80.1%). The majority of patients (88%, n = 141) wanted more information on their condition, with 45% (73) having home Internet access and a further 32% (52) having web access from other sources. Only 8% (12) had used the Internet as a source of information; however, the majority of patients (57%) would access a recommended web-site. The Barrett's search resulted in 10/200 sites with full information (i.e. score > 8/10 points). For colorectal polyps there were 12/200 sites.
CONCLUSIONS: Accessing quality Internet health information is very time consuming. Recommended web-sites that provide the best information would help patients avoid being overwhelmed with irrelevant and confusing literature.
METHOD: A postal questionnaire was sent to patients under follow-up for Barrett's oesophagus and colonic polyps. Questions related to computer/Internet access, where patients had previously sought information, whether web-sites would be of use, and what information they would like displayed. A review of on-line patient literature for Barrett's oesophagus and colorectal adenomas was performed.
RESULTS: Of the 200 questionnaires sent, 161 patients responded (80.1%). The majority of patients (88%, n = 141) wanted more information on their condition, with 45% (73) having home Internet access and a further 32% (52) having web access from other sources. Only 8% (12) had used the Internet as a source of information; however, the majority of patients (57%) would access a recommended web-site. The Barrett's search resulted in 10/200 sites with full information (i.e. score > 8/10 points). For colorectal polyps there were 12/200 sites.
CONCLUSIONS: Accessing quality Internet health information is very time consuming. Recommended web-sites that provide the best information would help patients avoid being overwhelmed with irrelevant and confusing literature.