Dataset Information

Online information on dysmenorrhoea: An evaluation of readability, credibility, quality and usability.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Lovett J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6739134 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Online information on dysmenorrhoea: An evaluation of readability, credibility, quality and usability.

Lovett Jordan J Gordon Candice C Patton Shelby S Chen Chen X CX

Journal of clinical nursing 20190620 19-20

<h4>Aims and objectives</h4>To evaluate online information on dysmenorrhoea, including readability, credibility, quality and usability.<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>This was a descriptive study to evaluate online information on dysmenorrhoea.<h4>Method ...[more]

PMID: 31162870

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patient information is important to help patients fully participate in their healthcare. Commonly accessed osteoporosis patient information resources were identified and assessed for readability, quality, accuracy and consistency. Resources contained inconsistencies and scored low when assessed for quality and readability. We recommend optimal language and identify information gaps to address.IntroductionThe purpose of this paper is to identify commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment, appraise the quality and make recommendations for improvement.MethodsPatient information resources were purposively sampled and text extracted. Data extracts underwent assessment of readability (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) and quality (modified International Patient Decision Aid Standards (m-IPDAS)). A thematic analysis was conducted, and keywords and phrases were used to describe osteoporosis and its treatment identified. Findings were presented to a stakeholder group who identified inaccuracies and contradictions and discussed optimal language.ResultsNine patient information resources were selected, including webpages, a video and booklets (available online), from government, charity and private healthcare providers. No resource met acceptable readability scores for both measures of osteoporosis information and drug information. Quality scores from the modified IPDAS ranged from 21 to 64% (7-21/33). Thematic analysis was informed by Leventhal's Common-Sense Model of Disease. Thirteen subthemes relating to the identity, causes, timeline, consequences and controllability of osteoporosis were identified. Phrases and words from 9 subthemes were presented to the stakeholder group who identified a predominance of medical technical language, misleading terms about osteoporotic bone and treatment benefits, and contradictions about symptoms. They recommended key descriptors for providers to use to describe osteoporosis and treatment benefits.ConclusionsThis study found that commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis have highly variable quality, scored poorly on readability assessments and contained inconsistencies and inaccuracies. We produced practical recommendations for information providers to support improvements in understanding, relevance, balance and bias, and to address information gaps.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Three main changes were implemented in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in December 2017: an increase in the recommended age to start screening, extended screening intervals, and change from the Papanicolaou (Pap) test to primary human papillomavirus screening (cervical screening test). The internet is a readily accessible source of information to explain the reasons for these changes to the public. It is important that web-based health information about changes to national screening programs is accessible and understandable for the general population. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate Australian web-based resources that provide information about the changes to the cervical screening program. METHODS:The term cervical screening was searched in 3 search engines. The first 10 relevant results across the first 3 pages of each search engine were selected. Overall, 2 authors independently evaluated each website for readability (Flesch Reading Ease [FRE], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG] index), quality of information (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT] for printable materials), credibility (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] benchmark criteria and presence of Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct [HONcode] certification), website design, and usability with 5 simulation questions to assess the relevance of information. A descriptive analysis was conducted for the readability measures, PEMAT, and the JAMA benchmark criteria. RESULTS:Of the 49 websites identified in the search, 15 were eligible for inclusion. The consumer-focused websites were classed as fairly difficult to read (mean FRE score 51.8, SD 13.3). The highest FRE score (easiest to read) was 70.4 (Cancer Council Australia Cervical Screening Consumer Site), and the lowest FRE score (most difficult to read) was 33.0 (NCSP Clinical Guidelines). A total of 9 consumer-focused websites and 4 health care provider-focused websites met the recommended threshold (sixth to eighth grade; SMOG index) for readability. The mean PEMAT understandability scores were 87.7% (SD 6.0%) for consumer-focused websites and 64.9% (SD 13.8%) for health care provider-focused websites. The mean actionability scores were 58.1% (SD 19.1%) for consumer-focused websites and 36.7% (SD 11.0%) for health care provider-focused websites. Moreover, 9 consumer-focused and 3 health care provider-focused websites scored above 70% for understandability, and 2 consumer-focused websites had an actionability score above 70%. A total of 3 websites met all 4 of the JAMA benchmark criteria, and 2 websites displayed the HONcode. CONCLUSIONS:It is important for women to have access to information that is at an appropriate reading level to better understand the implications of the changes to the cervical screening program. These findings can help health care providers direct their patients toward websites that provide information on cervical screening that is written at accessible reading levels and has high understandability.

Project description:BackgroundMedication is the most common intervention in health care, and the number of online consumer information systems within the pharmaceutical sector is increasing. However, online consumer information systems can be a barrier for users, imposing information asymmetries between stakeholders.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to quantify and compare the usability of an online consumer medication information system (OCMIS) against a reference implementation based on an interoperable information model for patients, physicians, and pharmacists.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative data were acquired from patients, physicians, and pharmacists in this online usability study. We administered 3 use cases and a post hoc questionnaire per user. Quantitative usability data including effectiveness (task success), efficiency (task time), and user satisfaction (system usability scale [SUS]) was complemented by qualitative and demographic data. Users evaluated 6 existing systems and 1 reference implementation of an OCMIS.ResultsA total of 137 patients, 81 physicians, and 68 pharmacists participated in this study. Task success varied from 84% to 92% in patients, 66% to 100% in physicians, and 50% to 91% in pharmacists. Task completion time decreased over the course of the study for all but 2 OCMIS within the patient group. Due to an assumed nonnormal distribution of SUS scores, within-group comparison was done using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Patients showed differences in SUS scores (P=.02) and task time (P=.03), while physicians did not have significant differences in SUS scores (P=.83) and task time (P=.72). For pharmacists, a significant difference in SUS scores (P<.001) and task time (P=.007) was detected.ConclusionsThe vendor-neutral reference implementation based on an interoperable information model was proven to be a promising approach that was not inferior to existing solutions for patients and physicians. For pharmacists, it exceeded user satisfaction scores compared to other OCMIS. This data-driven approach based on an interoperable information model enables the development of more user-tailored features to increase usability. This fosters data democratization and empowers stakeholders within the pharmaceutical sector.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous studies have revealed widespread clinician frustration with the usability of electronic health records (EHRs) that is counterproductive to adoption of EHR systems to meet the aims of health-care reform. With poor system usability comes increased risk of negative unintended consequences. Usability issues could lead to user error and workarounds that have the potential to compromise patient safety and negatively impact the quality of care.[1] While there is ample research on EHR usability, there is little information on the usability of laboratory information systems (LISs). Yet, LISs facilitate the timely provision of a great deal of the information needed by physicians to make patient care decisions.[2] Medical and technical advances in genomics that require processing of an increased volume of complex laboratory data further underscore the importance of developing user-friendly LISs. This study aims to add to the body of knowledge on LIS usability.MethodsA survey was distributed among LIS users at hospitals across the United States. The survey consisted of the ten-item System Usability Scale (SUS). In addition, participants were asked to rate the ease of performing 24 common tasks with a LIS. Finally, respondents provided comments on what they liked and disliked about using the LIS to provide diagnostic insight into LIS perceived usability.ResultsThe overall mean SUS score of 59.7 for the LIS evaluated is significantly lower than the benchmark of 68 (P < 0.001). All LISs evaluated received mean SUS scores below 68 except for Orchard Harvest (78.7). While the years of experience using the LIS was found to be a statistically significant influence on mean SUS scores, the combined effect of years of experience and LIS used did not account for the statistically significant difference in the mean SUS score between Orchard Harvest and each of the other LISs evaluated.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that overall usability of LISs is poor. Usability lags that of systems evaluated across 446 usability surveys.

Dataset Information

Online information on dysmenorrhoea: An evaluation of readability, credibility, quality and usability.

Publications

Online information on dysmenorrhoea: An evaluation of readability, credibility, quality and usability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets