Ensuring quality information for patients tool to assess patient information on CABG websites: Systemic search and evaluation.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Perfusion-Uk Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1177/02676591241303842
Chun Wai Tai, Lam Wing Kwan, Jeremy Chan, Gianni D Angelini
{"title":"Ensuring quality information for patients tool to assess patient information on CABG websites: Systemic search and evaluation.","authors":"Chun Wai Tai, Lam Wing Kwan, Jeremy Chan, Gianni D Angelini","doi":"10.1177/02676591241303842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is the most common cardiac surgical procedure worldwide. The Internet is often the first place for patients to obtain medical information and may influence their health-seeking behaviour. This study aimed to assess the quality of online CABG information for patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A review was conducted on the available CABG information online using four search terms in Google: \"coronary artery bypass grafting\", \"CABG\", \"bypass surgery\", and \"coronary surgery\". Websites on the first three pages of each search term were assessed by two independent assessors using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool (score 0-36).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>71 websites in total were eligible for the evaluation. Most websites originated from the USA and the UK (35% for both). The median EQIP score was 16.5. Most websites used everyday language (94%) in short sentences (83%). More than half (60%) of the websites addressed qualitative complications and risks of surgery. Only 1/3 of the websites described treatment alternatives, precautions before surgery, and warning signs after surgery. Only about 1/10 of websites could address quality-of-life issues and resolution of complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most online sites concerning CABG scores were low in EQIP tool assessment in terms of quality and readability with insufficient sources. Minimal information is provided regarding the quantitative risks and complications. Enhancement of the credibility and informativeness of websites is needed to reduce patients' anxiety about surgical procedures and help with treatment options for coronary artery disease. Education and investigation on the consistency of high-quality websites may help patient identify high quality medical information.</p>","PeriodicalId":49707,"journal":{"name":"Perfusion-Uk","volume":" ","pages":"2676591241303842"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perfusion-Uk","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591241303842","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is the most common cardiac surgical procedure worldwide. The Internet is often the first place for patients to obtain medical information and may influence their health-seeking behaviour. This study aimed to assess the quality of online CABG information for patients.

Methods: A review was conducted on the available CABG information online using four search terms in Google: "coronary artery bypass grafting", "CABG", "bypass surgery", and "coronary surgery". Websites on the first three pages of each search term were assessed by two independent assessors using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool (score 0-36).

Results: 71 websites in total were eligible for the evaluation. Most websites originated from the USA and the UK (35% for both). The median EQIP score was 16.5. Most websites used everyday language (94%) in short sentences (83%). More than half (60%) of the websites addressed qualitative complications and risks of surgery. Only 1/3 of the websites described treatment alternatives, precautions before surgery, and warning signs after surgery. Only about 1/10 of websites could address quality-of-life issues and resolution of complications.

Conclusion: Most online sites concerning CABG scores were low in EQIP tool assessment in terms of quality and readability with insufficient sources. Minimal information is provided regarding the quantitative risks and complications. Enhancement of the credibility and informativeness of websites is needed to reduce patients' anxiety about surgical procedures and help with treatment options for coronary artery disease. Education and investigation on the consistency of high-quality websites may help patient identify high quality medical information.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Perfusion-Uk
Perfusion-Uk 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Perfusion is an ISI-ranked, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, which provides current information on all aspects of perfusion, oxygenation and biocompatibility and their use in modern cardiac surgery. The journal is at the forefront of international research and development and presents an appropriately multidisciplinary approach to perfusion science.
期刊最新文献
Ensuring quality information for patients tool to assess patient information on CABG websites: Systemic search and evaluation. Hemoadsorption during cardiopulmonary bypass to absorb plasma-free hemoglobin in patients with acute type a aortic dissection: A randomized controlled trial. Letter re: The COMICS trial: Randomization to MiECC significantly decreases serious adverse events. MiECC reloaded. Non-invasive cerebral autoregulation monitoring during paediatric cardiac surgery without cardiopulmonary bypass requiring intraoperative cross-clamping of one of the carotid arteries.
×
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