Dataset Information

How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To investigate whether UK websites about cervical cancer screening targeted to the public include (1) information about benefits and risks of screening, possible screening results and cervical cancer statistics, (2) quantitative presentation formats recommended in the risk communication literature and (3) appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis of websites using a comprehensive checklist of information items on screening benefits, risks, possible results and cervical cancer statistics. OUTCOME MEASURES:We recorded the number of websites that contained each of the information items, and the presentation format used for probabilistic information (no quantification provided, verbal quantifiers only, different types of numerical formats and/or graphs). We also recorded the number of websites containing appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making. SETTING:Websites were identified through the most common Google search terms used in the UK to find information on cervical screening, according to GoogleTrends and a commercial internet-monitoring programme. Two additional websites were identified by the authors as relevant. RESULTS:After applying exclusion criteria, 14 websites were evaluated, including websites of public and private health service providers, charities, a medical society and a pharmacy. The websites mentioned different benefits, risks of screening and possible results. However, specific content varied between websites. Probabilistic information was often presented using non-recommended formats, including relative risk reductions to express screening benefits, and verbal quantifiers without numbers to express risks. Appeals for participation were present in most websites, with almost half also mentioning informed decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:UK websites about cervical cancer screening were generally balanced. However, benefits and risks were presented using different formats, potentially hindering comparisons. Additionally, recommendations from the literature to facilitate understanding of quantitative information and facilitate informed decisions were often not followed. Designing websites that adhere to existing recommendations may support informed screening uptake.

SUBMITTER: Okan Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6830680 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats.

Okan Yasmina Y Smith Samuel G SG Bruine de Bruin Wändi W

BMJ open 20191028 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate whether UK websites about cervical cancer screening targeted to the public include (1) information about benefits and risks of screening, possible screening results and cervical cancer statistics, (2) quantitative presentation formats recommended in the risk communication literature and (3) appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional analysis of websites using a comprehensive checklist of information items on screenin ...[more]

PMID: 31662361

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:BackgroundTrustworthy educational information for patients is critical for increasing their knowledge base and preparing them for shared decision making with clinicians. As the internet has become an important source of health information for many patients, the purpose of this study was to assess the quality and content of websites with educational content about immune checkpoint inhibitors.MethodsWe performed an environmental scan of the currently available websites providing educational information for patients about immune checkpoint inhibitors. We used three search engines: Google, Bing, and Yahoo! (9/20/2021). Two independent investigators selected relevant uniform resource locators (URLs), appraised the quality of the websites, and collected their characteristics. We evaluated the accuracy, completeness, technical elements, design and aesthetics, readability, usability, and accessibility of the websites. The user experience was also evaluated.ResultsWe identified 37 websites for analysis. In 10 websites (27%), it was not possible to know the source of the information provided. Thirty-three (89%) provided a definition with a simple explanation of cancer and treatment and 30 (81%) on complications of immune checkpoint inhibitors; only seven (19%) provided information about the balance between risks and benefits. Thirty-five (95%) provided a statement of purpose. Regarding the design, all 37 (100%) had appropriate visual aspects, typography, and grammar. Thirty-six (97%) were well organized. For most of the websites (n = 35, 95%) the content was easy to find. Only two websites had a readability score of 6, while the others had higher scores. Regarding the user experience, the overall quality of websites was rated as excellent in 16 (43%), good in 14 (38%), and fair in 7 (19%).ConclusionsOur findings reveal that websites with information about immune checkpoint inhibitors mostly have general information about cancer, the treatments, and adverse events. Few websites provide information about the balance between harms and benefits of treatment, costs, the source of the information, or the hierarchy of evidence. These findings identify the gap in the quality and content of websites for patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and can help website creators and developers.

Project description:BackgroundThe onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the concurrent development of vaccines offered a rare and somewhat unprecedented opportunity to study antivaccination behavior as it formed over time via the use of archived versions of websites.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess how existing antivaccination websites modified their content to address COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic restrictions.MethodsUsing a preexisting collection of 25 antivaccination websites curated by the IvyPlus Web Collection Program prior to the pandemic and crawled every 6 months via Archive-It, we conducted a content analysis to see how these websites acknowledged or ignored COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic restrictions. Websites were assessed for financial behaviors such as having storefronts, mention of COVID-19 vaccines in general or by manufacturer name, references to personal freedom such as masking, safety concerns like side effects, and skepticism of science.ResultsThe majority of websites addressed COVID-19 vaccines in a negative fashion, with more websites making appeals to personal freedom or expressing skepticism of science than questioning safety. This can potentially be attributed to the lack of available safety data about the vaccines at the time of data collection. Many of the antivaccination websites we evaluated actively sought donations and had a membership option, evidencing these websites have financial motivations and actively build a community around these issues. The content analysis also offered the opportunity to test the viability of archived websites for use in scholarly research. The archived versions of the websites had significant shortcomings, particularly in search functionality, and required supplementation with the live websites. For web archiving to be a viable source of stand-alone content for research, the technology needs to make significant improvements in its capture abilities.ConclusionsIn summary, we found antivaccination websites existing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic largely adapted their messaging to address COVID-19 vaccines with very few sites ignoring the pandemic altogether. This study also demonstrated the timely and significant need for more robust web archiving capabilities as web-based environments become more ephemeral and unstable.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough subjective expressions and linguistic fluency have been shown as important factors in processing and interpreting textual facts, analyses of these traits in textual health information for different audiences are lacking. We analyzed the readability and linguistic psychological and emotional characteristics of different textual summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews.MethodsWe performed a multitrait-multimethod cross-sectional study of Press releases available at Cochrane web site (n = 162) and corresponding Scientific abstracts (n = 158), Cochrane Clinical Answers (n = 35) and Plain language summaries in English (n = 156), French (n = 101), German (n = 41) and Croatian (n = 156). We used SMOG index to assess text readability of all text formats, and natural language processing tools (IBM Watson Tone Analyzer, Stanford NLP Sentiment Analysis and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) to examine the affective states and subjective information in texts of Scientific abstracts, Plain language summaries and Press releases.ResultsAll text formats had low readability, with SMOG index ranging from a median of 15.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.3-15.9) for Scientific abstracts to 14.7 (95% CI 14.4-15.0) for Plain language summaries. In all text formats, "Sadness" was the most dominantly perceived emotional tone and the style of writing was perceived as "Analytical" and "Tentative". At the psychological level, all text formats exhibited the predominant "Openness" tone, and Press releases scored higher on the scales of "Conscientiousness", "Agreeableness" and "Emotional range". Press releases had significantly higher scores than Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries on the dimensions of "Clout", and "Emotional tone".ConclusionsAlthough the readability of Plain language summaries was higher than that of text formats targeting more expert audiences, the required literacy was much higher than the recommended US 6th grade level. The language of Press releases was generally more engaging than that of Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries, which are written by the authors of systematic reviews. Preparation of textual summaries about health evidence for different audiences should take into account readers' subjective experiences to encourage cognitive processing and reaction to the provided information.

Dataset Information

How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats.

Publications

How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets