Dataset Information

Assessment of the quality and readability of online information on autopsy for the general public: a cross-sectional analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Hospital (consented) autopsy rates have dropped precipitously in recent decades. Online medical information is now a common resource used by the general public. Given clinician reluctance to request hospital postmortem examinations, we assessed whether healthcare users have access to high quality, readable autopsy information online.

Design

A cross-sectional analysis of 400 webpages. Readability was determined using the Flesch-Kincaid score, grade level and Coleman-Liau Index. Authorship, DISCERN score and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria were applied by two independent observers. Health on the net code of conduct (HON-code) certification was also assessed. Sixty-five webpages were included in the final analysis.

Results

The overall quality was poor (mean DISCERN=38.1/80, 28.8% did not fulfil a single JAMA criterion and only 10.6% were HON-code certified). Quality scores were significantly different across author types, with scientific and health-portal websites scoring highest by DISCERN (analysis of variance (ANOVA), F=5.447, p<0.001) and JAMA (Kruskal-Wallis, p<0.001) criteria. HON-code certified sites were associated with higher JAMA (Mann-Whitney U, p<0.001) and DISCERN (t-test, t=3.5, p=0.001) scores. The most frequent author type was government (27.3%) which performed lower than average on DISCERN scores (ANOVA, F=5.447, p<0.001). Just 5% (3/65) were at or below the recommended eight grade reading level (aged 13-15 years).

Conclusions

Although there were occasional high quality web articles containing autopsy information, these were diluted by irrelevant and low quality sites, set at an inappropriately high reading level. Given the paucity of high quality articles, healthcare providers should familiarise themselves with the best resources and direct the public accordingly.

SUBMITTER: Hanley B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6549648 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of the quality and readability of online information on autopsy for the general public: a cross-sectional analysis.

Hanley Brian B Brown Philip P O'Neill Shane S Osborn Michael M

BMJ open 20190530 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>Hospital (consented) autopsy rates have dropped precipitously in recent decades. Online medical information is now a common resource used by the general public. Given clinician reluctance to request hospital postmortem examinations, we assessed whether healthcare users have access to high quality, readable autopsy information online.<h4>Design</h4>A cross-sectional analysis of 400 webpages. Readability was determined using the Flesch-Kincaid score, grade level and Coleman-Liau ...[more]

PMID: 31152026

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:To evaluate online information on dysmenorrhoea, including readability, credibility, quality and usability. BACKGROUND:Menstrual pain impacts 45%-95% of women of reproductive age globally and is the leading cause of school and work absences among women. Women often seek online information on dysmenorrhoea; however, little is known about the information quality. DESIGN:This was a descriptive study to evaluate online information on dysmenorrhoea. METHODS:We imitated search strategies of the general public. Specifically, we employed the three most popular search engines worldwide-Google, Yahoo and Bing-and used lay search terms, "period pain" and "menstrual cramps." We screened 60 web pages. Following removal of duplicates and irrelevant web pages, 25 met the eligibility criteria. Two team members independently evaluated the included web pages using standardised tools. Readability was evaluated with the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade formulas; credibility, quality and usability were evaluated with established tools. We followed the STROBE checklist for reporting this study. RESULTS:For readability, the mean Flesch-Kincaid level was 10th grade. For credibility, 8% of web pages referenced scientific literature and 28% stated the author's name and qualifications. For quality, no web page employed user-driven content production; 8% of web pages referenced evidence-based guidelines, 32% of web pages had accurate content, and 4% of web pages recommended shared decision-making. Most web pages were interactive and included nontextual information. Some nontextual information was inaccurate. CONCLUSION:Online information on dysmenorrhoea has generally low readability, mixed credibility and variable quality. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE:Strategies to improve health information on dysmenorrhoea include avoiding complex terms, incorporating visual aids, presenting evidence-based information and developing a decision aid to support shared decision-making. Healthcare providers should be aware of the problematic health information that individuals are exposed to and provide education about how to navigate online health information.

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:BackgroundA relentless flood of information accompanied the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. False news, conspiracy theories, and magical cures were shared with the general public at an alarming rate, which may lead to increased anxiety and stress levels and associated debilitating consequences.ObjectivesTo measure the level of COVID-19 information overload (COVIO) and assess the association between COVIO and sociodemographic characteristics among the general public.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted between April and May 2020 using a modified Cancer Information Overload scale. The survey was developed and posted on four social media platforms. The data were only collected from those who consented to participate. COVIO score was classified into high vs. low using the asymmetrical distribution as a guide and conducted a binary logistic regression to examine the factors associated with COVIO.ResultsA total number of 584 respondents participated in this study. The mean COVIO score of the respondents was 19.4 (±?4.0). Sources and frequency of receiving COVID-19 information were found to be significant predictors of COVIO. Participants who received information via the broadcast media were more likely to have high COVIO than those who received information via the social media (adjusted odds ratio ([aOR],14.599; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.608-132.559; p?=?0.017). Also, participants who received COVID-19 information every minute (aOR, 3.892; 95% CI, 1.124-13.480; p?=?0.032) were more likely to have high COVIO than those who received information every week.ConclusionThe source of information and the frequency of receiving COVID-19 information were significantly associated with COVIO. The COVID-19 information is often conflicting, leading to confusion and overload of information in the general population. This can have unfavorable effects on the measures taken to control the transmission and management of COVID-19 infection.

Project description:BackgroundLipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a highly proatherogenic lipid fraction that is a clinically significant risk modifier. Patients wanting to learn more about Lp(a) are likely to use online patient educational materials (OPEMs). However, the readability of OPEMs may exceed the health literacy of the public.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the readability of OPEMs related to Lp(a). We hypothesized that the readability of these online materials would exceed the sixth grade level recommended by the American Medical Association.MethodsUsing an online search engine, we queried the top 20 search results from 10 commonly used Lp(a)-related search terms to identify a total of 200 websites. We excluded duplicate websites, advertised results, research journal articles, or non-patient-directed materials, such as those intended only for health professionals or researchers. Grade level readability was calculated using 5 standard readability metrics (automated readability index, SMOG index, Coleman-Liau index, Gunning Fog score, Flesch-Kincaid score) to produce robust point (mean) and interval (CI) estimates of readability. Generalized estimating equations were used to model grade level readability by each search term, with the 5 readability scores nested within each OPEM.ResultsA total of 27 unique websites were identified for analysis. The average readability score for the aggregated results was a 12.2 (95% CI 10.9798-13.3978) grade level. OPEMs were grouped into 6 categories by primary source: industry, lay press, research foundation and nonprofit organizations, university or government, clinic, and other. The most readable category was OPEMs published by universities or government agencies (9.0, 95% CI 6.8-11.3). The least readable OPEMs on average were the ones published by the lay press (13.0, 95% CI 11.2-14.8). All categories exceeded the sixth grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association.ConclusionsLack of access to readable OPEMs may disproportionately affect patients with low health literacy. Ensuring that online content is understandable by broad audiences is a necessary component of increasing the impact of novel therapeutics and recommendations regarding Lp(a).

Dataset Information

Assessment of the quality and readability of online information on autopsy for the general public: a cross-sectional analysis.

Objectives

Design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Assessment of the quality and readability of online information on autopsy for the general public: a cross-sectional analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets