膝关节骨关节炎在线信息的全面性、准确性、质量、可信度和可读性。

Anthony J Goff, Christian J Barton, Mark Merolli, Andre Shi Zhang Quah, Caleb Ki-Cheong Hoe, Danilo De Oliveira Silva
{"title":"膝关节骨关节炎在线信息的全面性、准确性、质量、可信度和可读性。","authors":"Anthony J Goff,&nbsp;Christian J Barton,&nbsp;Mark Merolli,&nbsp;Andre Shi Zhang Quah,&nbsp;Caleb Ki-Cheong Hoe,&nbsp;Danilo De Oliveira Silva","doi":"10.1177/18333583221090579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People are increasingly using the Internet to retrieve health information about chronic musculoskeletal conditions, yet content can be inaccurate and of variable quality.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarise (i) comprehensiveness, (ii) accuracy and clarity, iii) quality of information about treatment choices, (iv) credibility and (v) readability of online information about knee osteoarthritis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic appraisal of website content. Searches for \"knee osteoarthritis\" and \"knee arthritis\" were performed using Google and Bing (October 2020). The top 20 URLs of each search were screened for eligibility. Comprehensiveness, accuracy and clarity of content were matched against 14 pre-defined topic descriptors. DISCERN and HONcode were used to measure quality of information about treatment choices and website credibility, respectively. Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests were used to assess readability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five websites were included. Websites were generally comprehensive (median, range = 12, 0-14/14) with descriptors available for 67% (<i>n</i> = 330/490) of topics across all websites, but only 35% (<i>n</i> = 116/330) were accurate and clear. Quality of information about treatment choices was generally low (median DISCERN score, range = 40, 16-56/80). Credibility descriptors were present for 65% (<i>n</i> = 181/280) of items, with 81% (<i>n</i> = 146/181) of descriptors being clear. Median Flesch reading ease was 53 (range = 21-74), and Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 8 (range = 5-11).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Few websites provide accurate and clear content aligned to key research evidence. Quality of information about treatment choices was poor, with large variation in comprehensiveness, credibility and readability.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Careful consideration is required by clinicians to identify what online information people with knee osteoarthritis have accessed and to address misinformed beliefs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":"52 3","pages":"185-193"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comprehensiveness, accuracy, quality, credibility and readability of online information about knee osteoarthritis.\",\"authors\":\"Anthony J Goff,&nbsp;Christian J Barton,&nbsp;Mark Merolli,&nbsp;Andre Shi Zhang Quah,&nbsp;Caleb Ki-Cheong Hoe,&nbsp;Danilo De Oliveira Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/18333583221090579\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People are increasingly using the Internet to retrieve health information about chronic musculoskeletal conditions, yet content can be inaccurate and of variable quality.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarise (i) comprehensiveness, (ii) accuracy and clarity, iii) quality of information about treatment choices, (iv) credibility and (v) readability of online information about knee osteoarthritis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic appraisal of website content. Searches for \\\"knee osteoarthritis\\\" and \\\"knee arthritis\\\" were performed using Google and Bing (October 2020). The top 20 URLs of each search were screened for eligibility. Comprehensiveness, accuracy and clarity of content were matched against 14 pre-defined topic descriptors. DISCERN and HONcode were used to measure quality of information about treatment choices and website credibility, respectively. Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests were used to assess readability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five websites were included. Websites were generally comprehensive (median, range = 12, 0-14/14) with descriptors available for 67% (<i>n</i> = 330/490) of topics across all websites, but only 35% (<i>n</i> = 116/330) were accurate and clear. Quality of information about treatment choices was generally low (median DISCERN score, range = 40, 16-56/80). Credibility descriptors were present for 65% (<i>n</i> = 181/280) of items, with 81% (<i>n</i> = 146/181) of descriptors being clear. Median Flesch reading ease was 53 (range = 21-74), and Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 8 (range = 5-11).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Few websites provide accurate and clear content aligned to key research evidence. Quality of information about treatment choices was poor, with large variation in comprehensiveness, credibility and readability.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Careful consideration is required by clinicians to identify what online information people with knee osteoarthritis have accessed and to address misinformed beliefs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"volume\":\"52 3\",\"pages\":\"185-193\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583221090579\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583221090579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

背景:人们越来越多地使用互联网检索有关慢性肌肉骨骼疾病的健康信息,但内容可能不准确,质量参差不齐。目的:总结(i)全面性,(ii)准确性和清晰度,(iii)治疗选择信息的质量,(iv)可信度和(v)膝关节骨关节炎在线信息的可读性。方法:对网站内容进行系统评价。使用谷歌和必应搜索“膝骨关节炎”和“膝关节关节炎”(2020年10月)。每个搜索的前20个url都被筛选为合格的。内容的全面性、准确性和清晰度与14个预定义的主题描述符相匹配。分别使用DISCERN和HONcode来测量有关治疗选择和网站可信度的信息质量。使用Flesch Reading Ease和Flesch- kincaid Grade Level测试来评估可读性。结果:共纳入35个网站。网站总体上是全面的(中位数,范围= 12,0-14/14),所有网站中有67% (n = 330/490)的主题描述符可用,但只有35% (n = 116/330)的主题描述符是准确和清晰的。关于治疗选择的信息质量普遍较低(辨别评分中位数,范围= 40,16-56/80)。65% (n = 181/280)的项目存在可信度描述符,81% (n = 146/181)的描述符是清晰的。Flesch阅读难易度中位数为53(范围= 21-74),Flesch- kincaid年级水平为8(范围= 5-11)。结论:很少有网站提供准确和清晰的内容与关键研究证据一致。关于治疗选择的信息质量较差,在全面性、可信度和可读性方面差异很大。意义:临床医生需要仔细考虑确定膝关节骨关节炎患者访问了哪些在线信息,并解决错误的观念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comprehensiveness, accuracy, quality, credibility and readability of online information about knee osteoarthritis.

Background: People are increasingly using the Internet to retrieve health information about chronic musculoskeletal conditions, yet content can be inaccurate and of variable quality.

Objective: To summarise (i) comprehensiveness, (ii) accuracy and clarity, iii) quality of information about treatment choices, (iv) credibility and (v) readability of online information about knee osteoarthritis.

Method: Systematic appraisal of website content. Searches for "knee osteoarthritis" and "knee arthritis" were performed using Google and Bing (October 2020). The top 20 URLs of each search were screened for eligibility. Comprehensiveness, accuracy and clarity of content were matched against 14 pre-defined topic descriptors. DISCERN and HONcode were used to measure quality of information about treatment choices and website credibility, respectively. Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests were used to assess readability.

Results: Thirty-five websites were included. Websites were generally comprehensive (median, range = 12, 0-14/14) with descriptors available for 67% (n = 330/490) of topics across all websites, but only 35% (n = 116/330) were accurate and clear. Quality of information about treatment choices was generally low (median DISCERN score, range = 40, 16-56/80). Credibility descriptors were present for 65% (n = 181/280) of items, with 81% (n = 146/181) of descriptors being clear. Median Flesch reading ease was 53 (range = 21-74), and Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 8 (range = 5-11).

Conclusion: Few websites provide accurate and clear content aligned to key research evidence. Quality of information about treatment choices was poor, with large variation in comprehensiveness, credibility and readability.

Implications: Careful consideration is required by clinicians to identify what online information people with knee osteoarthritis have accessed and to address misinformed beliefs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health information management students' work-integrated learning (professional practice placements): Where do they go and what do they do? Physician-clinical coder collaboration effectively improves coding accuracy: A single-centre prospective study in China. Physicians' acceptance and adoption of mobile health applications during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. The health information management workforce: Looking to the future. Demystifying environmental health-related diseases: Using ICD codes to facilitate environmental health clinical referrals.
×
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