Advertisement

What defines a good website of a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology? A user survey

  • Günther A. RezniczekEmail author
  • Ziad Hilal
  • Alaa Helal
  • Sven Schiermeier
  • Clemens B. Tempfer
General Gynecology
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The Internet has become a widely used source of healthcare information. Many Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology use their websites for public relations purposes. It is, however, unclear, what relevant stakeholders such as patients, relatives of patients, physicians, and medical students expect of an Obstetrics and Gynecology Department’s website. Therefore, we evaluated the opinions and expectations of the various stakeholders using a structured questionnaire.

Methods

We asked gynecologic patients, obstetric patients, relatives of patients, medical students, and physicians to fill in an anonymous questionnaire consisting of general facts about the informant, one open-ended question on expectations and wishes regarding the website, and 28 rating scale questions (7-step visual analog scale ranging from, not important’ to, very important’) covering the topics “website navigation” (4 questions), “first contact” (3 questions), “clinic processes” (7 questions), “facts and figures about the Department” (4 questions), “visual impressions” (5 questions), and “obstetrics-specific items” (5 questions). Questionnaires for physicians included four additional questions about the value of Department websites as an information tool for themselves and their patients. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data.

Results

1458 questionnaires were analyzed (gynecologic patients, n = 615 [42%]; obstetric patients, n = 479 [33%]; relatives of patients, n = 77 [5%]; medical students n = 238 [16%]; physicians, n = 41 [3%]). The number of circulated questionnaires was not recorded and thus, the response rate is unknown. 1304 (89%) respondents used the Internet as a regular source of health care information, 642 (44%) had previously searched an Obstetrics and Gynecology Department website. All respondents rated contact data and information about processes in the clinic highest; whereas, other issues such as medical facts, visual impressions, and website design issues were significantly less important. Pregnant women rated contact information and obstetric facts highest. 90% of physicians regularly used Department websites for patient referrals and rated contact information and medical team details most important.

Conclusions

When designing a website of an Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, contact information and information about processes in the clinic should be displayed most prominently and be easily accessible. Subsections specifically targeted at obstetric patients and physicians should be provided.

Keywords

Content Design Obstetrics and Gynecology Quality Website World Wide Web 

Notes

Author contribution

GA Rezniczek: Protocol Development, Data Analysis, Manuscript Writing. Z Hilal: Data Collection, Manuscript Writing. A Helal: Data Management, Manuscript Editing. S Schiermeier: Data Collection, Manuscript Editing. CB Tempfer: Protocol Development, Data Collection, Manuscript Writing.

Funding

The study was funded by the authors’ institutional funds.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Formal approval from the local Ethics Committee of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum was sought but not deemed necessary for this study.

Data availability

Original data generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplementary material

404_2019_5051_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (762 kb)
Horizontal box plots showing the scores given by all respondents (overall, black) as well as individual stakeholder groups (see legend with color code below the figure) for the rating scale questions of the survey (see Table 1 for details; scale 1 to 7: 1, not important; 7, very important). The boundaries of the boxes indicate the 25th/75th percentiles, solid lines within the boxes mark the medians, and dotted lines mark the means. Whiskers indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles. (PDF 761 kb)
404_2019_5051_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Word clouds showing the relative frequencies of terms extracted from the open-ended question (“What kind of information do you expect from a website of a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology? Name anything that comes to your mind.”), using a square-root scale, overall and for the individual stakeholder groups (scales across groups are not normalized). (PDF 1140 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    McMullan M (2006) Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 63(1–2):24–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Javanmardi M, Noroozi M, Mostafavi F et al (2018) Internet usage among pregnant women for seeking health information: a review article. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 23(2):79–86.  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_82_17 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soltani H, Dickinson FM (2005) Exploring women’s views on information provided during pregnancy. Br J Midwifery 13(10):633–636.  https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2005.13.10.19838 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bjelke M, Martinsson A-K, Lendahls L et al (2016) Using the Internet as a source of information during pregnancy—a descriptive cross-sectional study in Sweden. Midwifery 40:187–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.06.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bert F, Gualano MR, Brusaferro S et al (2013) Pregnancy e-health: a multicenter Italian cross-sectional study on Internet use and decision-making among pregnant women. J Epidemiol Community Health 67(12):1013–1018.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-202584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lima-Pereira P, Bermúdez-Tamayo C, Jasienska G (2012) Use of the Internet as a source of health information amongst participants of antenatal classes. J Clin Nurs 21(3–4):322–330.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03910.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L-l Gao, Larsson M, S-y Luo (2013) Internet use by Chinese women seeking pregnancy-related information. Midwifery 29(7):730–735.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waring ME, Moore Simas TA, Xiao RS et al (2014) Pregnant women’s interest in a website or mobile application for healthy gestational weight gain. Sex Reprod Healthc 5(4):182–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2014.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mazloomdoost D, Kanter G, Chan RC et al (2016) Social networking and Internet use among pelvic floor patients: a multicenter survey. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(5):654.e1–654.e10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rezniczek GA, Küppers L, Heuer H et al (2015) Quality of websites of obstetrics and gynecology departments: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15:103.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0537-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B et al (2000) Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet: principles governing AMA web sites. J Am Med Assoc JAMA 283(12):1600–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang JYJ, Al-Fozan H, Tan SL et al (2003) Internet use by patients seeking infertility treatment. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 83(1):75–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haagen EC, Tuil W, Hendriks J et al (2003) Current Internet use and preferences of IVF and ICSI patients. Hum Reprod 18(10):2073–2078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weissman A, Gotlieb L, Ward S et al (2000) Use of the Internet by infertile couples. Fertil Steril 73(6):1179–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neumark Y, Flum L, Lopez-Quintero C et al (2012) Quality of online health information about oral contraceptives from Hebrew-language websites. Isr J Health Policy Res 1(1):38.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-4015-1-38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang JYJ, Discepola F, Al-Fozan H et al (2005) Quality of fertility clinic websites. Fertil Steril 83(3):538–544.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.08.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R et al (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyRuhr-Universität Bochum – Marien Hospital HerneHerneGermany
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Witten/Herdecke, Marien Hospital WittenWittenGermany

Personalised recommendations