Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate Cancer on the Web—Expedient Tool for Patients’ Decision-Making?

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many patients diagnosed with cancer search for health information on the Web. We aimed to assess the quality and reliability of online health information on prostate cancer. Google, Yahoo, and Bing were searched for the term “prostate cancer.” After selecting the most frequented websites, quality was measured by DISCERN score, JAMA benchmark criteria, and presence of HONcode certification. Popularity was assessed by Alexa tool, while accessibility, usability, and reliability were investigated by LIDA tool. Readability was analyzed by Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level and Automated Readability Index. All 13 selected websites were rated as being of high quality according to the DISCERN instrument (76.5 ± 2.6 out of 80 points). JAMA benchmark criteria were fulfilled by 87 % of websites, whereas only 37 % were certified by the HONcode. Median Alexa Traffic Rank was 2718 ranging from 7 to 679,038. Websites received 2.3 ± 0.5 daily pageviews per visitor and users spent an average of 2 min 58 s ± 39 sec on the website. Accessibility (92 ± 5 %) and usability (92 ± 3 %) scores were high and reliability (88 ± 8 %) moderate according to the LIDA tool. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 7.9 ± 2.2, and Automated Readability Index was 7.5 ± 2.4, rating the websites as fairly difficult to read. In conclusion, quality, accessibility, and usability of websites on prostate cancer provided a high rating in the current analysis. These findings are encouraging in view of the growing frequency of patients’ access of health information online.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The British United Provident Association. 2015. Why better informed patients are better for themselves, doctors and health systems. http://www.bupa.com/media/535303/health_pulse_patient_power_final.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2015.

  2. Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW (2002) Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 17(3):180–185

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Davison BJ, Breckon EN (2012) Impact of health information-seeking behavior and personal factors on preferred role in treatment decision making in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs 35(6):411–418. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e318236565a

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gilbert SM, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Greenfield TK, Hembroff L, Klein E, Saigal CS et al (2014) Satisfaction with information used to choose prostate cancer treatment. J Urol 191(5):1265–1271. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Black PC, Penson DF (2006) Prostate cancer on the Internet—information or misinformation? J Urol 175(5):1836–1842. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00996-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel A, Cobourne MT (2014) The design and content of orthodontic practise websites in the UK is suboptimal and does not correlate with search ranking. Eur J Orthod. doi:10.1093/ejo/cju078

    Google Scholar 

  7. Statista: The statistic portal. 2015. Worldwide market share of leading search engines from January 2010 to January 2015 http://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/. Accessed 02 April 2015.

  8. Search engine watch: Top google results gets 36.4 % of clicks. http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2049695/top-google-result-gets-364-clicks-study. Accessed 02 April 2015.

  9. Hargrave DR, Hargrave UA, Bouffet E (2006) Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro Oncol 8(2):175–182. doi:10.1215/15228517-2005-008

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA (1997) Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor—Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277(15):1244–1245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Health on the Net Foundation. 2014. The HON code of conduct for medical and health web sites (HONcode). Available at: http://www.hon.ch. Accessed 02 June 2014.

  12. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(2):105–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chumber S, Huber J, Ghezzi P (2015) A methodology to analyze the quality of health information on the internet: the example of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Educ 41(1):95–105. doi:10.1177/0145721714560772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alkhateeb S, Lawrentschuk N (2011) Consumerism and its impact on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 108(11):1874–1878. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10117.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Samadbeik M, Ahmadi M, Mohammadi A, Mohseni Saravi B (2014) Health information on internet: quality, importance, and popularity of Persian health websites. Iran Red Crescent Med J 16(4), e12866. doi:10.5812/ircmj.12866

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. San Norberto EM, Taylor J, Salvador R, Revilla A, Merino B, Vaquero C (2011) The quality of information available on the internet about aortic aneurysm and its endovascular treatment. Rev Esp Cardiol 64(10):869–875. doi:10.1016/j.recesp.2011.04.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. United States Government: Section 508. 2015. Opening doors to IT. http://www.section508.gov/. Accessed 02 April 2015.

  18. Muthukumarasamy S, Osmani Z, Sharpe A, England RJ (2012) Quality of information available on the World Wide Web for patients undergoing thyroidectomy: review. J Laryngol Otol 126(2):116–119. doi:10.1017/S0022215111002246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kirthi V, Modi BN (2012) Coronary angioplasty and the internet: what can patients searching online expect to find? J Interv Cardiol 25(5):476–481. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8183.2012.00748.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Leira-Feijoo, Y., Y. Ledesma-Ludi, J. M. Seoane-Romero, J. Blanco-Carrion, J. Seoane, and P. Varela-Centelles. 2014. Available web-based dental implants information for patients. How good is it? Clin Oral Implants Res. doi:10.1111/clr.12451.

  21. Weiss BD (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  22. MedlinePlus. 2015. How to write easy to read health materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed 02 April 2015.

  23. Ellimoottil C, Polcari A, Kadlec A, Gupta G (2012) Readability of websites containing information about prostate cancer treatment options. J Urol 188(6):2171–2175. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chik I, Smith TJ (2015) Obtaining helpful information from the internet about prognosis in advanced cancer. J Oncol Pract 11(4):327–331. doi:10.1200/JOP.2015.004739

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

SL receives support from the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter NYU Cancer Center.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany

      Hendrik Borgmann, Jan-Henning Wölm, Stefan Vallo, Rene Mager, Axel Haferkamp & Igor Tsaur

    2. Department of Urology, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

      Johannes Huber

    3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

      Johannes Breyer

    4. Department of Urology, St Josefs-Hospital, Dortmund, Germany

      Johannes Salem

    5. Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

      Stacy Loeb

    Authors
    1. Hendrik Borgmann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Jan-Henning Wölm
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Stefan Vallo
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Rene Mager
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Johannes Huber
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Johannes Breyer
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Johannes Salem
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    8. Stacy Loeb
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    9. Axel Haferkamp
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    10. Igor Tsaur
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Hendrik Borgmann.

    Additional information

    Axel Haferkamp and Igor Tsaur are senior authors.

    Axel Haferkamp and Igor Tsaur contributed equally to this work.

    Electronic Supplementary Material

    Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

    Supplementary Material Online Resource 1

    Flow chart depicting the selection process for websites on prostate cancer. (TIFF 4340 kb)

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Borgmann, H., Wölm, JH., Vallo, S. et al. Prostate Cancer on the Web—Expedient Tool for Patients’ Decision-Making?. J Canc Educ 32, 135–140 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-015-0891-3

    Download citation

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-015-0891-3

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation