Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 135–140 | Cite as

Prostate Cancer on the Web—Expedient Tool for Patients’ Decision-Making?

  • Hendrik BorgmannEmail author
  • Jan-Henning Wölm
  • Stefan Vallo
  • Rene Mager
  • Johannes Huber
  • Johannes Breyer
  • Johannes Salem
  • Stacy Loeb
  • Axel Haferkamp
  • Igor Tsaur


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.


Prostatic 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.

Supplementary material

13187_2015_891_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (4.2 mb)
Supplementary Material Online Resource 1 Flow chart depicting the selection process for websites on prostate cancer. (TIFF 4340 kb)


  1. 1.
    The British United Provident Association. 2015. Why better informed patients are better for themselves, doctors and health systems. Accessed 29 March 2015.
  2. 2.
    Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW (2002) Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 17(3):180–185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davison BJ, Breckon EN (2012) Impact of health information-seeking behavior and personal factors on preferred role in treatment decision making in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs 35(6):411–418. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e318236565a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilbert SM, Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Greenfield TK, Hembroff L, Klein E, Saigal CS et al (2014) Satisfaction with information used to choose prostate cancer treatment. J Urol 191(5):1265–1271. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black PC, Penson DF (2006) Prostate cancer on the Internet—information or misinformation? J Urol 175(5):1836–1842. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00996-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patel A, Cobourne MT (2014) The design and content of orthodontic practise websites in the UK is suboptimal and does not correlate with search ranking. Eur J Orthod. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cju078 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Statista: The statistic portal. 2015. Worldwide market share of leading search engines from January 2010 to January 2015 Accessed 02 April 2015.
  8. 8.
    Search engine watch: Top google results gets 36.4 % of clicks. Accessed 02 April 2015.
  9. 9.
    Hargrave DR, Hargrave UA, Bouffet E (2006) Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro Oncol 8(2):175–182. doi: 10.1215/15228517-2005-008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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. JAMA 277(15):1244–1245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Health on the Net Foundation. 2014. The HON code of conduct for medical and health web sites (HONcode). Available at: Accessed 02 June 2014.
  12. 12.
    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(2):105–111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chumber S, Huber J, Ghezzi P (2015) A methodology to analyze the quality of health information on the internet: the example of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Educ 41(1):95–105. doi: 10.1177/0145721714560772 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alkhateeb S, Lawrentschuk N (2011) Consumerism and its impact on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 108(11):1874–1878. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10117.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samadbeik M, Ahmadi M, Mohammadi A, Mohseni Saravi B (2014) Health information on internet: quality, importance, and popularity of Persian health websites. Iran Red Crescent Med J 16(4), e12866. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.12866 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    San Norberto EM, Taylor J, Salvador R, Revilla A, Merino B, Vaquero C (2011) The quality of information available on the internet about aortic aneurysm and its endovascular treatment. Rev Esp Cardiol 64(10):869–875. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2011.04.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    United States Government: Section 508. 2015. Opening doors to IT. Accessed 02 April 2015.
  18. 18.
    Muthukumarasamy S, Osmani Z, Sharpe A, England RJ (2012) Quality of information available on the World Wide Web for patients undergoing thyroidectomy: review. J Laryngol Otol 126(2):116–119. doi: 10.1017/S0022215111002246 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirthi V, Modi BN (2012) Coronary angioplasty and the internet: what can patients searching online expect to find? J Interv Cardiol 25(5):476–481. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2012.00748.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 21.
    Weiss BD (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MedlinePlus. 2015. How to write easy to read health materials. Accessed 02 April 2015.
  23. 23.
    Ellimoottil C, Polcari A, Kadlec A, Gupta G (2012) Readability of websites containing information about prostate cancer treatment options. J Urol 188(6):2171–2175. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.105 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chik I, Smith TJ (2015) Obtaining helpful information from the internet about prognosis in advanced cancer. J Oncol Pract 11(4):327–331. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2015.004739 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hendrik Borgmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan-Henning Wölm
    • 1
  • Stefan Vallo
    • 1
  • Rene Mager
    • 1
  • Johannes Huber
    • 2
  • Johannes Breyer
    • 3
  • Johannes Salem
    • 4
  • Stacy Loeb
    • 5
  • Axel Haferkamp
    • 1
  • Igor Tsaur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyTU DresdenDresdenGermany
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of UrologySt Josefs-HospitalDortmundGermany
  5. 5.Department of Urology and Population HealthNew York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations