Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of information available via the internet for patients with head and neck cancer: are we improving?

  • Head and Neck
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the type, content, accessibility and quality of information available via the internet for patients with head and neck cancer. The Google search engine was used to generate lists of the first 100 websites for general head and neck cancer and the first ten for head and neck cancers by anatomical location (160 total). Websites were evaluated with the validated DISCERN and LIDA instruments, the SMOG (Simple measure of gobbledygook) readability score and against the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) criteria. 40 of the 160 websites ranked by Google were suitable for analysis. Seven websites (17.5 %) partially or fully achieved all four JAMA benchmarks and only one (2.5 %) site achieved none. 28 (70 %) included reference to quality of life factors. Correlations were identified between Google site rank and all four of our appraisal tools; LIDA (−0.966, p = 0.006), JAMA (−5.93, p = 0.028), DISCERN (−0.568, p = 0.037) and SMOG (4.678, p = 0.04). Google site rank and both government run sites (−35.38, p = 0.034) and sites run by universities or hospitals (−27.32, p = 0.016) also showed an association. Comparing our observations with those of Riordain in 2008, there has been little improvement in the quality of head and neck cancer information available online over this time. Given the variability in quality of information online, patients would benefit from being directed to reliable websites by clinicians

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scottish Health Council (2011) A Scottish Health Council Report on participation and online technology. Healthcare Improvement Scotland

  2. The E Word. Search Engine Market Share. http://theeword.co.uk/info/search_engine_market.html. Accessed 24 Aug 2014

  3. Riordain RN, McCreary C (2008) Head and neck cancer information on the internet: type, accuracy and content. Oral Oncol 45:675–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004) Guidance of Cancer Services: Improving Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancers. London

  5. Boyer C, Provost M, Baujard V (2002) Highlights on the 8th HON survey of health and medical internet users. Health on the Net Foundation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  6. Granka LA, Joachims T, Gay G (2004) Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW Search. SIGIR 1–2

  7. Charnock D, Shepperd S (2004) Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 19:440–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Minervation. The Minervation validation instrument for healthcare websites (LIDA tool). http://www.minervation.com/lida-tool/. Accessed 23 Aug 2014

  9. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio R (1997) Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet. JAMA 277(15):1244–1247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Child D. Readability-Score.com. https://readability-score.com. Accessed 23 Aug 2014

  11. Fitzsimmons PR, Michael BD, Hulley JL, Scott GO (2010) A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 40(4):292–296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sharma N, Tridimas A, Fitzsimmons PR (2014) A readability assessment of online stroke information. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 23(6):1362–1367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Bahrani A, Plusa S (2003) The quality of patient-orientated internet information on colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 6:323–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sajid M, Iftikhar M, Monteiro RS, Miles AFW, Woods WGA, Baig MK (2007) Internet information on colorectal cancer: commercialization and lack of quality control. Colorectal Dis 10:352–356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stinson J, White M, Breakley V, Chong AL, Mak I, Low KK, Low AK (2011) Perspectives on quality and content of information on the internet for adolescents with cancer. Pediatric Blood Cancer. 57:97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2006) Diagnosis and management of head and neck cancer. Edinburgh

Download references

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Oncology, Yorkshire Training Rotation, Kingston upon Hull, UK

    James Best

  2. Department of Otolaryngology, West Midlands Training Rotation, Birmingham, UK

    Jameel Muzaffar & Alistair Mitchell-Innes

Authors
  1. James Best
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jameel Muzaffar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alistair Mitchell-Innes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Best.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Best, J., Muzaffar, J. & Mitchell-Innes, A. Quality of information available via the internet for patients with head and neck cancer: are we improving?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272, 3499–3505 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3349-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3349-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation