Evaluation of the scope, quality, and health literacy demand of Internet-based anal cancer information

Rebecca Charow, Michelle Snow, S. Fathima, M. Giuliani, Kate McEwan, Jordana Winegust, J. Papadakos
{"title":"Evaluation of the scope, quality, and health literacy demand of Internet-based anal cancer information","authors":"Rebecca Charow, Michelle Snow, S. Fathima, M. Giuliani, Kate McEwan, Jordana Winegust, J. Papadakos","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2019.393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives As there is a dearth of information about anal cancer available at cancer centers, patients often use the Internet to search for information. This is problematic, however, because the quality of information on the Internet is variable, and the health literacy demanded is higher than the average patrons’ capacity. The purposes of this study were to (1) determine the most common websites with anal cancer consumer health information, (2) identify the supportive care needs that each website addresses, and (3) evaluate the websites’ quality and health literacy demand. Methods Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) entry terms for “Anus Neoplasms” were used in Google Canada to identify websites. Seven domains of supportive care needs were defined using Fitch’s Supportive Care Framework for Cancer Care. Website quality was evaluated using the DISCERN tool. Health literacy demand was assessed using readability calculators, where best practice dictates a grade 6 or lower, and the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT) that computes a percentage score in 2 domains, understandability and actionability, with 80% being an acceptable score. Results Eighteen unique websites were evaluated. One website met health literacy best practices and had a “good” quality rating. Most websites addressed only 1 supportive care domain (61%), were of “fair” quality (67%), had readability scores higher than grade 6 (89%), and had PEMAT scores ranging from 41%–92% for understandability and 0–70% for actionability. Conclusion The information gaps on anal cancer websites warrant a need for more health literate anal cancer health information on the Internet.","PeriodicalId":227502,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Objectives As there is a dearth of information about anal cancer available at cancer centers, patients often use the Internet to search for information. This is problematic, however, because the quality of information on the Internet is variable, and the health literacy demanded is higher than the average patrons’ capacity. The purposes of this study were to (1) determine the most common websites with anal cancer consumer health information, (2) identify the supportive care needs that each website addresses, and (3) evaluate the websites’ quality and health literacy demand. Methods Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) entry terms for “Anus Neoplasms” were used in Google Canada to identify websites. Seven domains of supportive care needs were defined using Fitch’s Supportive Care Framework for Cancer Care. Website quality was evaluated using the DISCERN tool. Health literacy demand was assessed using readability calculators, where best practice dictates a grade 6 or lower, and the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT) that computes a percentage score in 2 domains, understandability and actionability, with 80% being an acceptable score. Results Eighteen unique websites were evaluated. One website met health literacy best practices and had a “good” quality rating. Most websites addressed only 1 supportive care domain (61%), were of “fair” quality (67%), had readability scores higher than grade 6 (89%), and had PEMAT scores ranging from 41%–92% for understandability and 0–70% for actionability. Conclusion The information gaps on anal cancer websites warrant a need for more health literate anal cancer health information on the Internet.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于互联网的肛门癌信息的范围、质量和健康素养需求评估
由于癌症中心缺乏有关肛门癌的信息,患者经常使用互联网搜索信息。然而,这是有问题的,因为互联网上的信息质量是可变的,而且对卫生知识的要求高于普通赞助人的能力。本研究的目的是(1)确定最常见的肛门癌消费者健康信息网站,(2)确定每个网站所涉及的支持性护理需求,(3)评估网站的质量和健康素养需求。方法采用加拿大谷歌网站的“肛门肿瘤”医学主题词(MeSH)词条进行检索。使用Fitch的癌症护理支持护理框架定义了七个支持性护理需求领域。使用DISCERN工具评估网站质量。使用可读性计算器和患者教育材料评估工具(PEMAT)对健康素养需求进行评估,其中最佳实践要求为6级或更低,患者教育材料评估工具在可理解性和可操作性两个领域计算百分比分数,其中80%为可接受分数。结果共评价了18个独特的网站。一个网站达到了健康素养的最佳实践,并获得了“良好”的质量评级。大多数网站只涉及1个支持性护理领域(61%),质量“一般”(67%),可读性得分高于6级(89%),并且PEMAT得分在可理解性41%-92%和可操作性0-70%之间。结论肛门癌网站存在信息缺口,需要更多具有健康素养的肛门癌健康信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Virtual Services in the Health Sciences Library: A Handbook Finding Your Seat at the Table: Roles for Librarians on In-stitutional Regulatory Boards and Com-mittees Assessing Academic Library Perfor-mance: A Handbook Dark Archives: A Librarian's Investigation into the Sci-ence and History of Books Bound in Hu-man Skin The National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1