Dataset Information

Quality of Information Available Online for Abortion Self-Referral.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the quality of information available online for abortion self-referral and to determine whether quality varies by region or distance to an abortion provider. METHODS:This was a cross-sectional study. We used a standard protocol to perform internet searches from August 2016 to June 2017 for abortion services in the 25 most populous U.S. cities and the 43 state capitals that were not one of the 25 most populous cities. We classified the first 10 webpage results and the first five map results and advertisements as facilitating abortion referral (local independent abortion provider, local Planned Parenthood facility, national abortion provider or organization, prochoice website, or abortion directory), not facilitating abortion referral (nonproviding physician office, nonmedical website, abortion provider greater than 50 miles from the location, news article, general directory, other), or hindering abortion referral (crisis pregnancy center or antichoice website). We used U.S. Census Bureau subregions to examine geographic differences. We made comparisons using a ? test. RESULTS:Overall, from 612 searches from 68 cities, 52.9% of webpage results, 67.3% of map results, and 34.4% of advertisements facilitated abortion referral, whereas 12.9%, 21.7%, and 29.9%, respectively, hindered abortion referral. The content of the searches differed significantly based on U.S. Census Bureau subregion (all P?.001) and distance to an abortion provider (all P?.02). CONCLUSION:Two thirds of map results facilitated abortion self-referral, whereas only half of webpage results did so. Advertisements were the least likely to facilitate and the most likely to hinder self-referral. Quality was lowest in areas that were farthest from abortion providers.

SUBMITTER: Dodge LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6249052 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of Information Available Online for Abortion Self-Referral.

Dodge Laura E LE Phillips Sharon J SJ Neo Dayna T DT Nippita Siripanth S Paul Maureen E ME Hacker Michele R MR

Obstetrics and gynecology 20181201 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the quality of information available online for abortion self-referral and to determine whether quality varies by region or distance to an abortion provider.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a cross-sectional study. We used a standard protocol to perform internet searches from August 2016 to June 2017 for abortion services in the 25 most populous U.S. cities and the 43 state capitals that were not one of the 25 most populous cities. We classified the first 10 webpage results a ...[more]

PMID: 30399097

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOver 20,000 parents in the United States face the challenge of participating in decisions about whether to use life support for their infants born on the cusp of viability every year. Clinicians must help families grasp complex medical information about their baby's immediate prognosis as well as the risk for significant long-term morbidity. Patients faced with this decision want supplemental information and frequently seek medical information on the Internet. Empirical evidence about the quality of websites is lacking.ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the quality of online information available about periviable birth and treatment options for infants born at the cusp of viability.MethodsWe read a counseling script to 20 pregnant participants that included information typically provided by perinatal and neonatal providers when periviable birth is imminent. The women were then asked to list terms they would use to search the Internet if they wanted additional information. Using these search terms, two reviewers evaluated the content of websites obtained via a Google search. We used two metrics to assess the quality of websites. The first was the DISCERN instrument, a validated questionnaire designed to assess the quality of patient-targeted health information for treatment choices. The second metric was the Essential Content Tool (ECT), a tool designed to address key components of counseling around periviable birth as outlined by professional organizations. DISCERN scores were classified as low quality if scores were 2, fair quality if scores were 3, and high quality if scores were 4 or higher. Scores of 6 or higher on the ECT were considered high quality. Interreviewer agreement was assessed by calculated kappa statistic.ResultsA total of 97 websites were reviewed. Over half (57/97, 59%) were for-profit sites, news stories, or personal blogs; 28% (27/97) were government or medical sites; and 13% (13/97) were nonprofit or advocacy sites. The majority of sites scored poorly in DISCERN questions designed to assess the reliability of information presented as well as data regarding treatment choices. Only 7% (7/97) of the websites were high quality as defined by the DISCERN tool. The majority of sites did not address the essential content defined by the ECT. Importantly, only 18% of websites (17/97) indicated that there are often a number of reasonable approaches to newborn care when faced with periviable birth. Agreement was strong, with kappa ranging from .72 to .91.ConclusionsMost information about periviable birth found on the Internet using common search strategies is of low quality. News stories highlighting positive outcomes are disproportionately represented. Few websites discuss comfort care or how treatment decisions impact quality of life.

Project description:BackgroundMost people who experience a potentially traumatic event (PTE) recover on their own. A small group of individuals develops psychological complaints, but this is often not detected in time or guidance to care is suboptimal. To identify these individuals and encourage them to seek help, a web-based self-help test called Mobile Insight in Risk, Resilience, and Online Referral (MIRROR) was developed. MIRROR takes an innovative approach since it integrates both negative and positive outcomes of PTEs and time since the event and provides direct feedback to the user.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to assess MIRROR's use, examine its psychometric properties (factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent and divergent validity), and evaluate how well it classifies respondents into different outcome categories compared with reference measures.MethodsMIRROR was embedded in the website of Victim Support Netherlands so visitors could use it. We compared MIRROR's outcomes to reference measures of PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5), depression, anxiety, stress (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21), psychological resilience (Resilience Evaluation Scale), and positive mental health (Mental Health Continuum Short Form).ResultsIn 6 months, 1112 respondents completed MIRROR, of whom 663 also completed the reference measures. Results showed good internal consistency (interitem correlations range .24 to .55, corrected item-total correlations range .30 to .54, and Cronbach alpha coefficient range .62 to .68), and convergent and divergent validity (Pearson correlations range -.259 to .665). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA+CFA) yielded a 2-factor model with good model fit (CFA model fit indices: χ219=107.8, P<.001, CFI=.965, TLI=.948, RMSEA=.065), conceptual meaning, and parsimony. MIRROR correctly classified respondents into different outcome categories compared with the reference measures.ConclusionsMIRROR is a valid and reliable self-help test to identify negative (PTSD complaints) and positive outcomes (psychosocial functioning and resilience) of PTEs. MIRROR is an easily accessible online tool that can help people who have experienced a PTE to timely identify psychological complaints and find appropriate support, a tool that might be highly needed in times like the coronavirus pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-tests are available to consumers for more than 25 conditions, ranging from infectious diseases to cardiovascular risk factors. Self-tests are defined as in-vitro tests on body materials such as blood, urine, faeces, or saliva that are initiated by consumers to diagnose a particular disorder or risk factor without involving a medical professional. In 2006, 16% of a sample of Dutch Internet users had ever used at least one self-test and 17% intended to use a self-test in the future. The objectives of this study are to determine (1) the frequency of self-test use, (2) the consumers' reasons for using or not using a self-test, (3) the information that is used by self-testers in the different self-test stages and the consumers' interpretation of the quality of this information, (4) the consumers' response to self-test results in terms of their confidence in the result, reassurance by the test result, and follow-up behaviour, (5) the information consumers report to need in the decision making process of using or not using a self-test, and in further management on the basis of the self-test result, and (6) the quality of the currently available consumer information on a selected set of self-tests.MethodsMixed methods study with (1) a cross-sectional study consisting of a two-phase Internet-questionnaire, (2) semi-structured interviews with self-testers and consumers who intend to use a self-test, and (3) the assessment of the quality of consumer information of self-tests. The Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviour will serve as the theoretical basis for the questionnaires and the interview topic guides.ConclusionsThe self-testing area is still in a state of flux and therefore it is expected that self-test use will increase in the future. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study which combines quantitative and qualitative research to identify consumers' information needs and use concerning self-testing, and the consumers' actual follow-up behaviour based on the self-test result, and simultaneously investigates the quality of the currently available consumer information. The results of this study will be used as an input in developing consumer information on self-testing.

Project description:BackgroundStudies examining whether genetic risk information about common, complex diseases can motivate individuals to improve health behaviors and advance planning have shown mixed results. Examining the influence of different study recruitment strategies may help reconcile inconsistencies.MethodsSecondary analyses were conducted on data from the REVEAL study, a series of randomized clinical trials examining the impact of genetic susceptibility testing for Alzheimer's disease (AD). We tested whether self-referred participants (SRPs) were more likely than actively recruited participants (ARPs) to report health behavior and advance planning changes after AD risk and APOE genotype disclosure.ResultsOf 795 participants with known recruitment status, 546 (69%) were self-referred and 249 (31%) had been actively recruited. SRPs were younger, less likely to identify as African American, had higher household incomes, and were more attentive to AD than ARPs (all P < 0.01). They also dropped out of the study before genetic risk disclosure less frequently (26% versus 41%, P < 0.001). Cohorts did not differ in their likelihood of reporting a change to at least one health behavior 6 weeks and 12 months after genetic risk disclosure, nor in intentions to change at least one behavior in the future. However, interaction effects were observed where ε4-positive SRPs were more likely than ε4-negative SRPs to report changes specifically to mental activities (38% vs 19%, p < 0.001) and diets (21% vs 12%, p = 0.016) six weeks post-disclosure, whereas differences between ε4-positive and ε4-negative ARPs were not evident for mental activities (15% vs 21%, p = 0.413) or diets (8% versus 16%, P = 0.190). Similarly, ε4-positive participants were more likely than ε4-negative participants to report intentions to change long-term care insurance among SRPs (20% vs 5%, p < 0.001), but not ARPs (5% versus 9%, P = 0.365).ConclusionsIndividuals who proactively seek AD genetic risk assessment are more likely to undergo testing and use results to inform behavior changes than those who respond to genetic testing offers. These results demonstrate how the behavioral impact of genetic risk information may vary according to the models by which services are provided, and suggest that how participants are recruited into translational genomics research can influence findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00089882 and NCT00462917.

Dataset Information

Quality of Information Available Online for Abortion Self-Referral.

Publications

Quality of Information Available Online for Abortion Self-Referral.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets