Dataset Information

The quality of websites addressing fibromyalgia: an assessment of quality and readability using standardised tools.

ABSTRACT: Background Patients living with fibromyalgia strongly prefer to access health information on the web. However, the majority of subjects in previous studies strongly expressed their concerns about the quality of online information resources. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate existing online fibromyalgia information resources for content, quality and readability by using standardised quality and readability tools. Methods The first 25 websites were identified using Google and the search keyword 'fibromyalgia'. Pairs of raters independently evaluated website quality using two structured tools (DISCERN and a quality checklist). Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease score maps. Results Ranking of the websites' quality varied by the tool used, although there was general agreement about the top three websites (Fibromyalgia Information, Fibromyalgia Information Foundation and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases). Content analysis indicated that 72% of websites provided information on treatment options, 68% on symptoms, 60% on diagnosis and 40% on coping and resources. DISCERN ratings classified 32% websites as 'very good', 32% as 'good and 36% as 'marginal'. The mean overall DISCERN score was 36.88 (good). Only 16% of websites met the recommended literacy level grade of 6-8 (range 7-15). Conclusion Higher quality websites tended to be less readable. Online fibromyalgia information resources do not provide comprehensive information about fibromyalgia, and have low quality and poor readability. While information is very important for those living with fibromyalgia, current resources are unlikely to provide necessary or accurate information, and may not be usable for most people.

SUBMITTER: Daraz L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3191440 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The quality of websites addressing fibromyalgia: an assessment of quality and readability using standardised tools.

Daraz Lubna L Macdermid Joy C JC Wilkins Seanne S Gibson Jane J Shaw Lynn L

BMJ open 20110731 1

Background Patients living with fibromyalgia strongly prefer to access health information on the web. However, the majority of subjects in previous studies strongly expressed their concerns about the quality of online information resources. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate existing online fibromyalgia information resources for content, quality and readability by using standardised quality and readability tools. Methods The first 25 websites were identified using Google and ...[more]

PMID: 22021777

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Websites on which users can rate their physician are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about the website quality, the information content, and the tools they offer users to assess physicians. This study assesses these aspects on physician-rating websites in German- and English-speaking countries. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to collect information on websites with a physician rating or review tool in 12 countries in terms of metadata, website quality (transparency, privacy and freedom of speech of physicians and patients, check mechanisms for appropriateness and accuracy of reviews, and ease of page navigation), professional information about the physician, rating scales and tools, as well as traffic rank. METHODS:A systematic Web search based on a set of predefined keywords was conducted on Google, Bing, and Yahoo in August 2016. A final sample of 143 physician-rating websites was analyzed and coded for metadata, quality, information content, and the physician-rating tools. RESULTS:The majority of websites were registered in the United States (40/143) or Germany (25/143). The vast majority were commercially owned (120/143, 83.9%), and 69.9% (100/143) displayed some form of physician advertisement. Overall, information content (mean 9.95/25) as well as quality were low (mean 18.67/47). Websites registered in the United Kingdom obtained the highest quality scores (mean 26.50/47), followed by Australian websites (mean 21.50/47). In terms of rating tools, physician-rating websites were most frequently asking users to score overall performance, punctuality, or wait time in practice. CONCLUSIONS:This study evidences that websites that provide physician rating should improve and communicate their quality standards, especially in terms of physician and user protection, as well as transparency. In addition, given that quality standards on physician-rating websites are low overall, the development of transparent guidelines is required. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the financial goals that the majority of physician-rating websites, especially the ones that are commercially owned, pursue.

Project description:BackgroundThe internet is becoming increasingly more important in the new era of patient self-education. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are recognized interventions to treat patients with carotid artery stenosis. Using the Google search platform, patients encounter many websites with conflicting information, which are sometimes difficult to understand. This lack of accessibility creates uncertainty or bias toward interventions for carotid artery disease. The quality, readability, and treatment preference of carotid artery disease (CAD) websites have not yet been evaluated.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the quality, readability, and treatment preference of CAD websites.MethodsWe searched Google Canada for 10 CAD-related keywords. Returned links were assessed for publication date, medical specialty and industry affiliation, presence of randomized controlled trial data, differentiation by symptomatic status, and favored treatment. Website quality and readability were rated by the DISCERN instrument and Gunning Fog Index.ResultsWe identified 54 unique sites: 18 (33.3%) by medical societies or individual physicians, 11 (20.4%) by government organizations, 9 (16.7%) by laypersons, and 1 (1.9%) that was industry-sponsored. Of these sites, 26 (48.1%) distinguished symptomatic from asymptomatic CAD. A majority of sites overall (57.4%) and vascular-affiliated (72.7%) favored CEA. In contrast, radiology- and cardiology-affiliated sites demonstrated the highest proportion of sites favoring CAS, though they were equally likely to favor CEA. A large proportion (21/54, 38.9%) of sites received poor quality ratings (total DISCERN score <48), and the majority (41/54, 75.9%) required a reading level greater than a high school senior.ConclusionsCAD websites are often produced by government organizations, medical societies, or physicians, especially vascular surgeons. Sites ranged in quality, readability, and differentiation by symptomatic status. Google searches of CAD-related terms are more likely to yield sites favoring CEA. Future research should determine the extent of website influence on CAD patients' treatment decisions.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians need to be able to assess the quality of the available information to aid clinical decision-making. The internet has become an important source of health information for consumers and their families.ObjectiveThis study aimed to rate the quality of websites with psychosis-related information (to provide clinicians with a basis for recommending material to guide clinical decision-making with consumers and their families), using a validated instrument as well as a purpose-developed checklist, and consider improvement in quality over a 4-year period.MethodsTwo measures of website quality were used: the DISCERN scale and the Psychosis Website Quality Checklist (PWQC). Terms related to psychosis, including "psychotic," "psychosis," "schizophrenia," "delusion," and "hallucination," were entered into Google, and the first 25 results were analyzed. In total, 6 raters with varying health professional backgrounds were used to evaluate the websites across two time points: January-March 2014 and January-March 2018.ResultsOf the 25 websites rated, only the 6 highest ranked websites achieved a DISCERN score, indicating that they were of "good" quality (51-62 out of a possible 75), while the mean score of the websites (mean 43.96, SD 12.08) indicated an overall "fair" quality. The PWQC revealed that websites scored highly on "availability and usability" (mean 16.82, SD 3.96) but poorly on "credibility" (mean 20.99, SD 6.68), "currency" (mean 5.16, SD 2.62), and "breadth and accuracy" (mean 77.87, SD 23.20). Most sites lacked information about early intervention, recreational drug use and suicide risk, with little change in content over time. Stating an editorial or review process on the website (found in 56% of websites) was significantly associated with a higher quality score on both scales (the DISCERN scale, P=.002; the PWQC, P=.006).ConclusionsThe information on the internet available for clinicians to recommend to people affected by psychosis tended to be of "fair" quality. While higher-quality websites exist, it is generally not easy way to assess this on face value. Evidence of an editorial or review process was one indicator of website quality. While sites generally provided basic clinical information, most lacked material addressing weighing up risks and benefits of medication and alternatives, the role of coercive treatment and other more contentious issues. Insufficient emphasis is placed on detailed information on early intervention and importance of lifestyle modifications or how families and friends can contribute. These are likely to be the very answers that consumers and carers are seeking and this gap contributes to unmet needs among this group. We suggest that clinicians should be aware of what is available and where there are gaps.

Dataset Information

The quality of websites addressing fibromyalgia: an assessment of quality and readability using standardised tools.

Publications

The quality of websites addressing fibromyalgia: an assessment of quality and readability using standardised tools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets