Quality analysis of patient information on surgical treatment of haemorrhoids on the internet

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Haemorrhoids are the most common benign condition seen by colorectal surgeons. At clinic appointments, advice given about lifestyle modification or surgical interventions may not be understood fully by patients. Patients may use the internet for further research into their condition. However, the quality of such information has not been investigated before. This study assessed the quality of patient information on surgical treatment of haemorrhoids on the internet. METHODS Four searches were carried out using the search terms 'surgery for haemorrhoids' and 'surgery for piles' on two search engines (Google and Yahoo). The first 50 results for each search were assessed. Sites were evaluated using the DISCERN instrument. RESULTS In total, 200 websites were assessed, of which 144 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 63 (44%) were sponsored by herbal remedies for haemorrhoids. Eighty-nine (62%) mentioned conservative treatment options but eleven (8%) did not include surgery in their treatment options. Only 38 sites (27%) mentioned recurrence of haemorrhoids following surgery and 28 sites (20%) did not list any complications. Overall, 19 websites (14%) were judged as being of high quality, 66 (45%) as moderate quality and 58 (40%) as low quality. CONCLUSIONS The quality of information on the internet is highly variable and a significant proportion of websites assessed are poor. The majority of websites are sponsored by private companies selling alternative treatments for haemorrhoids. Clinicians should be prepared to advise their patients which websites can provide high-quality information on the surgical treatment of haemorrhoids.

Assessment of the Quality of Patient-Orientated Information on Surgery for Crohn’s Disease on the Internet

“…surgical content, such as procedure details, risks, benefits, and information on the timescale of recovery postoperatively was also reviewed. each site was then scored by using the 15-point DisCeRn instrument (www.discern.org.uk), a widely used and extensively validated tool to assess patient information content for both printed and online resources 6,7,[11][12][13] and to evaluate the reliability and quality of consumer health information on treatment choices. 14 RESULTS the search terms "surgery for Crohn's disease" produced 10,600,000 results in Google and 4,920,000 results in Yahoo.…”

“…5 unfortunately, the quality of information provided by Web sites can be highly variable, because the content of many Web sites is not reviewed or monitored. 6,7 this study assesses the quality of patient-orientated internet information on Crohn's disease, treatment options, and surgery.…”

Online information on Crohn's disease in Chinese: an evaluation of its quality and readability

“…It was designed to assess the reliability of medical information and to evaluate the quality of medical treatment information. In recent years the system has been used by different sub‐disciplinary medical teams to evaluate the quality of English patient‐education information for several chronic diseases, showing a good applicable value, and has gradually been promoted by the academic community as one of the core evaluation systems . However, its feasibility in Chinese patient‐education information has not been determined so far.…”

“…Two CD specialists participated and independently completed the assessment (Y. Li and J. Li). The internet patient‐education information included was scored using the DISCERN marking system proposed by the University of Oxford Institute of Health Sciences in 1999 and simplified by subsequent investigators (Table ). The simplified DISCERN marking system consists of two parts; it assesses the reliability and the quality of the information related to the treatment selection.…”

Mechanisms in cardiovascular diseases: how useful are medical textbooks, eMedicine, and YouTube?

“…The aim of piloting was to introduce the evaluators to the tool, ensure that they were able to use it, and identify any inconsistencies among the evaluators that might necessitate improvement of the tool (44). Before the tool was applied, three chapters (other than those included in the study) were evaluated by the three evaluators for their content on mechanisms.…”