Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Assessment of Online Resources for the Most Common Cancers

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

Abstract

The internet is a common source of health information for patients with cancer. Despite research surrounding the quality of online resources for individual types of cancer, these results may not necessarily be easily extrapolated to cancer resources as a whole. Thus, we aim to use a standardized tool to produce generalizable results by analyzing the quality of online resources for the most common cancers. Educational websites pertaining to breast, lung, prostate, and colorectal cancers were searched using multiple search engines. After screening against pre-specified inclusion criteria, the most visible 100 websites for each cancer were extracted for analysis. A validated tool was then used to assess their quality. Pooled results were evaluated using descriptive and inferential statistics. Of the 400 analyzed websites, 43% were commercially affiliated, and these were significantly associated with greater use of biased language. Thirty percent of websites disclosed authorship, 47% cited at least one reliable source, and 43% were updated within the last 2 years. The average Flesch-Kincaid readability was determined to be at a grade 10.9 level, which is significantly more difficult than the recommended grade 6 level. Risk factors, symptoms, and detection were the most accurately covered topics. However, most websites did not cover prognosis. This study comprehensively examines the quality of online cancer resources for the four most common cancers. Our results could help guide the development of future resources, support patient education endeavors, and raise awareness among healthcare providers about the limitations of online cancer resources.

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

Data Availability

Available upon reasonable request.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1.   Perrin A, Atske S (2021) 7% of Americans don’t use the internet. Who are they? In: Pew Res. Cent. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/02/7-of-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/. Accessed 24 May 2021

  2. Pew Research Center (2011) Health topics. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/02/01/health-topics-4/. Accessed 6 Aug 2019

  3. Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A et al (2015) The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 1:505–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Health on the Net Foundation (2019) Discover the 8 principles of the HONcode in 35 languages. https://www.hon.ch/cgi-bin/HONcode/principles.pl?English. Accessed 13 Jan 2021

  5. Charnock D (1998) The DISCERN handbook. Radcliffe Medical Press Ltd, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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. J Am Med Assoc 277:1244–1245. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Abbott VP (2000) Web page quality: can we measure it and what do we find? A report of exploratory findings. J Public Health Med 22:191–197. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/22.2.191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E-R (2002) Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc 287:2691–2700. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.20.2691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang Y, Sun Y, Xie B (2015) Quality of health information for consumers on the web: a systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 66:2071–2084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Killeen S, Hennessey A, El Hassan Y et al (2011) Gastric cancer–related information on the Internet: incomplete, poorly accessible, and overly commercial. Am J Surg 201:171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sajid MS, Iftikhar M, Monteiro RS et al (2008) Internet information on colorectal cancer: commercialization and lack of quality control. Colorectal Dis 10:352–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01316.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Arif N, Ghezzi P (2018) Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options. The Breast 37:6–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Asafu-Adjei D, Mikkilineni N, Sebesta E, Hyams E (2019) Misinformation on the internet regarding ablative therapies for prostate cancer. Urology 133:182–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mcinnes N, Haglund BJA (2011) Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Informatics Heal Soc Care 36:173–189. https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2010.542529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Weiss KD, Vargas CR, Ho OA et al (2016) Readability analysis of online resources related to lung cancer. J Surg Res 206:90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.07.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM et al (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90

  17. Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Sudano J, Patterson M (2000) The association between age and health literacy among elderly persons. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 55:S368–S374

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Olives T, Patel R, Patel S et al (2011) Health literacy of adults presenting to an urban ED. Am J Emerg Med 29:875–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dutta-Bergman M (2003) Trusted online sources of health information: differences in demographics, health beliefs, and health-information orientation. J Med Internet Res 5:e21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. De Groot L, Harris I, Regehr G et al (2019) Quality of online resources for pancreatic cancer patients. J Cancer Educ 34:223–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1290-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chang KL, Grubbs EG, Ingledew PA (2019) An analysis of the quality of thyroid cancer websites. Endocr Pract 25:1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.4158/EP-2018-0595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ingledew PA (2015) Navigating the Internet in patient physician collaboration. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago

  23. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Nav Tech Train Command Millingt TN Res Branch

  24. Mc Laughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading-a new readability formula. J Read 12:639–646

    Google Scholar 

  25. National Institutes of Health (2021) Clear & simple. https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nih-office-director/office-communications-public-liaison/clear-communication/clear-simple#SMOG. Accessed 19 July 2021

  26. Weiss BD (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. In: Am. Med. Assoc. http://lib.ncfh.org/pdfs/6617.pdf. Accessed 13 Oct 2019

  27. Fefer M, Lamb CC, Shen AH et al (2020) Multilingual analysis of the quality and readability of online health information on the adverse effects of breast cancer treatments. JAMA Surg 155(8):781–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Okuhara T, Ishikawa H, Urakubo A et al (2018) Cancer information needs according to cancer type: a content analysis of data from Japan’s largest cancer information website. Prev Med reports 12:245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M et al (2020) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2017. In: Natl. Cancer Institute, Bethesda. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2017/

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mr. Lovedeep Gondara for providing statistical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 317 - 2194 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z3, Canada

    Jim (Zhang Hao) Li, Timothy Kong, Veronika Killow, Lisa Wang & Kevin Kobes

  2. Department of Surgery, Division of Radiation Oncology, University of British Columbia, 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, V5Z 1M9, Canada

    Timothy Kong, Veronika Killow & Paris-Ann Ingledew

  3. Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, 5950 University Boulevard, Vancouver, V6T 1Z3, Canada

    Lisa Wang

  4. College of Medicine, University of Illinois At Chicago, 1853 W Polk St, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Ara Tekian

  5. BC Cancer Agency – Vancouver Centre, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, V5Z 4E6, Canada

    Paris-Ann Ingledew

Authors
  1. Jim (Zhang Hao) Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Veronika Killow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lisa Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kevin Kobes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ara Tekian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paris-Ann Ingledew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and analysis were performed by Jim Li, Timothy Kong, Veronika Killow, Lisa Wang, and Kevin Kobes. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jim Li, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paris-Ann Ingledew.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

Not applicable, as no human or animal subjects were involved.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J.(.H., Kong, T., Killow, V. et al. Quality Assessment of Online Resources for the Most Common Cancers. J Canc Educ 38, 34–41 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02075-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02075-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation