Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 713–723 | Cite as

Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet

  • Vishalli GhaiEmail author
  • Vasilios Pergialiotis
  • Haider Jan
  • James M. N. Duffy
  • Stergios K. Doumouchtsis
  • On behalf of CHORUS: an International Collaboration Harmonising Outcomes, Research, and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

There is no systematic evaluation of online health information pertaining to obstetric anal sphincter injury. Therefore, we evaluated the accuracy, credibility, reliability, and readability of online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury.

Materials and methods

Multiple search engines were searched. The first 30 webpages were identified for each keyword and considered eligible if they provided information regarding obstetric anal sphincter injury. Eligible webpages were assessed by two independent researchers for accuracy (prioritised criteria based upon the RCOG Third and Fourth Degree Tear guideline); credibility; reliability; and readability.

Results

Fifty-eight webpages were included. Seventeen webpages (30%) had obtained Health On the Net certification, or Information Standard approval and performed better than those without such approvals (p = 0.039). The best overall performing website was http://www.pat.nhs.uk (score of 146.7). A single webpage (1%) fulfilled the entire criteria for accuracy with a score of 18: www.tamesidehospital.nhs.uk. Twenty-nine webpages (50%) were assessed as credible (scores ≥7). A single webpage achieved a maximum credibility score of 10: www.meht.nhs.uk. Over a third (21 out of 58) were rated as poor or very poor. The highest scoring webpage was http://www.royalsurrey.nhs.uk (score 62). No webpage met the recommended Flesch Reading Ease Score above 70. The intra-class coefficient between researchers was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89–0.96) for accuracy and reliability assessments.

Conclusion

Online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury often uses language that is inappropriate for a lay audience and lacks sufficient accuracy, credibility, and reliability.

Keywords

Accuracy Credibility Obstetric anal sphincter injury Online information Quality Systematic review 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary material

192_2018_3753_MOESM1_ESM.doc (63 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 63 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Sultan AH. Editorial: obstetrical perineal injury and anal incontinence. AVMA Med Legal J. 2016;5:193–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/135626229900500601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, et al. Impact of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears at first birth on subsequent pregnancy outcomes: a cohort study. BJOG. 2014;121:1695–703.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears. p. 1–19. 2015. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg29/. Accessed 8 February 2018.
  4. 4.
    Abdool Z, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Postpartum female sexual function. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;145:133–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.04.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roos A-M, Sultan AH, Thakar R. Sexual problems in the gynecology clinic: are we making a mountain out of a molehill? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:145–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1516-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borello-France D, Burgio KL, Richter HE, et al. Fecal and urinary incontinence in primiparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:863–72.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000232504.32589.3b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duggan M, Fox S. Health Online 2013. 2013. 1–55. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online.aspx. Accessed 21 February 2018.
  8. 8.
    Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fox S. Health Topics. 2011. 1–33. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/HealthTopics.aspx. Accessed 8t February 2018.
  11. 11.
    Healthy people 2010: understanding and improving health. 2010. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2010/Document/pdf/uih/2010uih.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2018.
  12. 12.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sacchetti P, Zvara P, Plante MK. The internet and patient education—resources and their reliability: focus on a select urologic topic. Urology. 1999;53:1117–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Public Health Association. Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the internet. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:513–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:105–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kincaid JP, Fishburn RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air Station; Memphis, TN; 1975.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hirsch M, Aggarwal S, Barker C, et al. Googling endometriosis: a systematic review of information available on the internet. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:451–8.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fioretti BTS, Reiter M, Betrán AP, Torloni MR. Googling caesarean section: a survey on the quality of the information available on the internet. BJOG. 2015;122:731–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the world wide web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005;74:13–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henderson EM, Rosser BA, Keogh E, Eccleston C. Internet sites offering adolescents help with headache, abdominal pain, and dysmenorrhoea: a description of content, quality, and peer interactions. J Pediatr Psychol. 2012;37:262–71.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsr100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dueñas-Garcia OF, Kandadai P, Flynn MK, et al. Patient-focused websites related to stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a DISCERN quality analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:875–80.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2615-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tirlapur SA, Leiu C, Khan KS. Quality of information on the internet related to bladder pain syndrome: a systematic review of the evidence. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1257–62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2091-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arif N, Ghezzi P. Breast cancer information on the internet: type of websites, accuracy and readability of online resources. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:S28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roughead T, Sewell D, Ryerson CJ, et al. Internet-based resources frequently provide inaccurate and out-of-date recommendations on preoperative fasting: a systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:1463–8.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McKearney TC, McKearney RM. The quality and accuracy of internet information on the subject of ear tubes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77:894–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C, et al. Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the internet. Spine. 2014;39:E645–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sethuram R, Weerakkody ANA. Health information on the internet. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30:119–21.  https://doi.org/10.3109/01443610903440927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, et al. Patients’ use of the internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:180–5.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10603.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: patient perceptions. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1727–34.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.14.1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Boer MJ, Versteegen GJ, van Wijhe M. Patients’ use of the internet for pain-related medical information. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68:86–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Car J, Lang B, Colledge A, et al. Interventions for enhancing consumers’ online health literacy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;74:CD007092.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007092.pub2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vishalli Ghai
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vasilios Pergialiotis
    • 2
  • Haider Jan
    • 1
  • James M. N. Duffy
    • 3
    • 4
  • Stergios K. Doumouchtsis
    • 2
    • 5
  • On behalf of CHORUS: an International Collaboration Harmonising Outcomes, Research, and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyEpsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research N.S. ChristeasUniversity of Athens, Medical SchoolAthensGreece
  3. 3.Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.Balliol CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  5. 5.St George’s University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations