Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 875–880 | Cite as

Patient-focused websites related to stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a DISCERN quality analysis

  • Omar Felipe Dueñas-GarciaEmail author
  • Padmasini Kandadai
  • Michael K. Flynn
  • Danielle Patterson
  • Jyot Saini
  • Katharine O’Dell
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The quality of information related to pelvic floor disorders is varied and understudied. Using a validated instrument we evaluated the quality of selected websites addressing treatment options for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Methods

English-language, patient-focused professional, governmental, and consumer websites related to POP and SUI were identified using the International Urogynecology Association (IUGA) list of continence societies worldwide, search terms, and provider nomination. Websites were evaluated by 10 providers at an academic medical center, representing urogynecology (6), urology (3), and general gynecology (1). Quality assessment utilized the DISCERN instrument, a validated instrument consisting of 16 questions addressing the quality of consumer health information.

Results

Websites of 13 organizations met inclusion criteria and were assessed, 12 relating to SUI and 8 to POP. The websites with the highest mean total DISCERN score for POP were those of the IUGA, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, and the American Urogynecologic Association, and for SUI, the National Association For Continence, the American Urological Association, and the IUGA. High correlations were obtained for the total DISCERN score and the overall quality scores for POP (0.76) and SUI (0.82). The most commonly omitted components of the DISCERN instrument were a clear statement of the content objectives, references or sources of the content, and a discussion of what patients could expect if they opted for no intervention.

Conclusions

Available English-language professional websites written to inform patients about management choices for SUI and POP miss key components of quality patient information.

Keywords

Prolapse Stress incontinence Information Website 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Katherine Leung MPH for her valuable assistance in the statistical analysis of this project.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Aldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT (2012) Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the internet valid? Eur J Orthod 34:466–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shuyler KS, Knight KM (2003) What are patients seeking when they turn to the internet? Qualitative content analysis of questions asked by visitors to an orthopaedics web site. J Med Internet Res 5:e24CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sajadi KP, Goldman HB, Firoozi F (2011) Assessing internet health information on female pelvic floor disorders. J Urol 186:594–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 53:105–111CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C, Fleming C, Rowan F, Byrne D et al (2014) Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E645–E649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKearney TC, McKearney RM (2013) The quality and accuracy of internet information on the subject of ear tubes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 77:894–897CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grohol JM, Slimowicz J, Granda R (2014) The quality of mental health information commonly searched for on the internet. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 17:216–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goslin RA, Elhassan HA (2013) Evaluating internet health resources in ear, nose, and throat surgery. Laryngoscope 123:1626–1631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ting K, Hu A (2013) Evaluating the quality and readability of thyroplasty information on the internet. J Voice 3:378–381Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghobrial GM, Mehdi A, Maltenfort M, Sharan AD, Harrop JS (2014) Variability of patient spine education by Internet search engine. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 118:59–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Batchelor JM, Ohya Y (2009) Use of the DISCERN instrument by patients and health professionals to assess information resources on treatments for asthma and atopic dermatitis. Allergol Int 58:141–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koch GG (1982) Intraclass correlation coefficient. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL (eds) Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Wiley, New York, pp 213–217Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winker MA, Herron M, Jones E, Bauchner H (2012) The JAMA network website: today’s content on the future of medical publishing. JAMA 307:2321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gagliardi A, Jadad AR (2002) Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 324:569–573CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jadad AR, Gagliardi A (1998) Rating health information on the internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA 279:611–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD (1998) The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 28:603–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL et al (2000) Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association. JAMA 283:1600–1606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omar Felipe Dueñas-Garcia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Padmasini Kandadai
    • 1
  • Michael K. Flynn
    • 1
  • Danielle Patterson
    • 1
  • Jyot Saini
    • 1
  • Katharine O’Dell
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urogynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology DepartmentUniversity of MassachusettsWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations