Prostate Cancer on the Web—Expedient Tool for Patients’ Decision-Making?
- 353 Downloads
Many patients diagnosed with cancer search for health information on the Web. We aimed to assess the quality and reliability of online health information on prostate cancer. Google, Yahoo, and Bing were searched for the term “prostate cancer.” After selecting the most frequented websites, quality was measured by DISCERN score, JAMA benchmark criteria, and presence of HONcode certification. Popularity was assessed by Alexa tool, while accessibility, usability, and reliability were investigated by LIDA tool. Readability was analyzed by Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level and Automated Readability Index. All 13 selected websites were rated as being of high quality according to the DISCERN instrument (76.5 ± 2.6 out of 80 points). JAMA benchmark criteria were fulfilled by 87 % of websites, whereas only 37 % were certified by the HONcode. Median Alexa Traffic Rank was 2718 ranging from 7 to 679,038. Websites received 2.3 ± 0.5 daily pageviews per visitor and users spent an average of 2 min 58 s ± 39 sec on the website. Accessibility (92 ± 5 %) and usability (92 ± 3 %) scores were high and reliability (88 ± 8 %) moderate according to the LIDA tool. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 7.9 ± 2.2, and Automated Readability Index was 7.5 ± 2.4, rating the websites as fairly difficult to read. In conclusion, quality, accessibility, and usability of websites on prostate cancer provided a high rating in the current analysis. These findings are encouraging in view of the growing frequency of patients’ access of health information online.
KeywordsProstatic neoplasms Internet Consumer health information Health services research Decision making
Conflict of Interest
SL receives support from the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter NYU Cancer Center.
- 1.The British United Provident Association. 2015. Why better informed patients are better for themselves, doctors and health systems. http://www.bupa.com/media/535303/health_pulse_patient_power_final.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2015.
- 7.Statista: The statistic portal. 2015. Worldwide market share of leading search engines from January 2010 to January 2015 http://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/. Accessed 02 April 2015.
- 8.Search engine watch: Top google results gets 36.4 % of clicks. http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2049695/top-google-result-gets-364-clicks-study. Accessed 02 April 2015.
- 11.Health on the Net Foundation. 2014. The HON code of conduct for medical and health web sites (HONcode). Available at: http://www.hon.ch. Accessed 02 June 2014.
- 17.United States Government: Section 508. 2015. Opening doors to IT. http://www.section508.gov/. Accessed 02 April 2015.
- 20.Leira-Feijoo, Y., Y. Ledesma-Ludi, J. M. Seoane-Romero, J. Blanco-Carrion, J. Seoane, and P. Varela-Centelles. 2014. Available web-based dental implants information for patients. How good is it? Clin Oral Implants Res. doi: 10.1111/clr.12451.
- 21.Weiss BD (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 22.MedlinePlus. 2015. How to write easy to read health materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed 02 April 2015.