Evaluation of internet derived patient information

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe internet is a widely used, powerful resource for patients to research medical conditions. There is an extensive amount of information available on the internet. It is important for patient information to be accurate and in an easily accessible format. This article aims to assess the quality of patient information on hydrocephalus and compares the findings with recent evaluations in other surgical specialties.METHODSThe term ‘hydrocephalus’ was searched for on the search engines http://www.google.com/, http://www.bing.com/ and http://www.yahoo.com/. The top 20 results of these searches were assessed using the University of Michigan consumer health website evaluation checklist.RESULTSThe quality of patient information websites on hydrocephalus is highly variable. Websites rarely provide sufficient authorship information, do not review their information regularly enough and only reference material occasionally. The background of the provider was found to influence the quality of the website, with academic and care providers creating the best websites.CONCLUSIONSOn comparing our findings with those of recent studies from other surgical specialties, it was found that there was often a conflict of interest between the background of the provider and the information supplied. It is recommended that clinicians personally research material for their patients to be able to guide them to suitable, accurate websites.

Scientific and ethical features of English‐language online tests for Alzheimer's disease

“…The rating grid we developed for the present study built on past work and takes into consideration the specific issues and challenges of a self-assessment. Regardless of which tool is used, the findings are consistent across studies: variability in quality and reliability [9] , [44] , [45] and limited attention to ethics features such as disclosures of conflicts of interest [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] .…”

The quality and reliability of the Internet as a source of information for hypodontia patients

“…Practice websites scored poorly for JAMA Benchmarks most frequently due to a lack of appropriate referencing, failure to disclose author names, qualifications, affiliations or conflicting financial motivation. This reflects studies in other medical areas that have also linked Authorship to quality of information (Ward and Leach, 2012) . Of note, UK websites performed statistically worse in JAMA Benchmarks compared to US websites.…”

Assessment of the Readability and Quality of Online Information for Patients and Their Families Regarding Schizophrenia

“…Because of this issue, many publications report that most health-related content on the Internet varies in quality and readability. Moreover, many of these sites were found to be of low quality and lack readability (Bagcier et al, 2021; Saeed and Anderson, 2017; Ward and Leach, 2012; Wrigley Kelly et al, 2021). In addition, considering that people with schizophrenia suffer from cognitive impairment, it would be even more challenging for them to comprehend (Keefe and Harvey, 2012).…”