Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gastrointestinal cancer web sites: how do they address patients’ concerns?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We studied the quality of web sites containing information on gastrointestinal cancer, focusing on the way these web sites dealt with the special concerns of these patients.

Materials and methods

Searching the Internet for German-language gastroenterological cancer web sites, we collected 9,947 web pages from 14 search engines. Evaluation was done with a 36-item questionnaire. Information quality, availability of the web sites, and web site attributes considering patients’ concerns and potential embarrassment were analyzed using a scoring system.

Results

Belonging to 165 web sites, 1,763 of 9,947 (17.7%) web pages found by search engines provided relevant information. Five hundred forty-seven (5.5%) hits were partly relevant, and 7,637 (76.8%) were irrelevant or not available. Most web sites reported about surgery (92.1%), chemotherapy (88.5%), and radiotherapy (73.9%). Of the web sites, 46.7% (n=77), 34.6% (n=57), and 21.8% (n=36) gave information about the author(s) itself, their qualifications, and references of their information, respectively. Search engines ranked web sites giving no information on evidence-based medicine higher than other web sites, whereas web sites providing this information accurately showed higher link popularities. Patients’ concerns and potential embarrassment were best addressed by gastrointestinal web sites initiated by private individuals or web sites directed to both a patient and physician audience.

Conclusions

With regard to gastrointestinal cancer web sites, many search engines may be ineffective, and patient emotional needs and concerns are often disregarded. Also, physicians should guide their patients through the Internet to find high-quality information and use link-popularity-based search strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pimienta D, Lamey B, Prado D, Sztrum M (2001) The fifth study on languages and the Internet (Networks and Development Foundation). http://funredes.org/LC/english/L5/L5overview.html. Cited 13 January 2005

  2. NUA (2004) How many online? USA. http://www.nua.com/surveys. Cited 13 January 2005

  3. NUA (2004) How many online? Europe. http://www.nua.com/surveys. Cited 13 January 2005

  4. Fallows D, Rainie L (2004) The popularity and importance of search engines. Pew Internet and American Life Project memo. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Data_Memo_Searchengines.pdf

  5. Sullivan D (2003) Searches per day. http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2156461. Cited 13 January 2005

  6. Gorelick FS (2000) Patient competence. Gastroenterology 119:613

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Meredith C, Symonds P, Webster L, Lamont D, Pyper E, Gillis CR, Fallowfield L (1996) Information needs of cancer patients in west Scotland: cross sectional survey of patients’ views. BMJ 313:724–726

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pastore M (1999) Doctors missing internet health opportunity. http://cyberatlas.internet.com. Cited 13 January 2005

  9. Ziebland S, Chapple A, Dumelow C, Evans J, Prinjha S, Rozmovits L (2004) How the internet affects patients’ experience of cancer: a qualitative study. BMJ 328:564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bader JL, Theofanos MF (2003) Searching for cancer information on the internet: analyzing natural language search queries. J Med Internet Res 5:e31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eysenbach G (2003) The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 53:356–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fogel J, Albert SM, Schnabel F, Ditkoff BA, Neugut AI (2002) Use of the internet by women with breast cancer. J Med Internet Res 4:e9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hainer MI, Tsai N, Komura ST, Chiu CL (2000) Fatal hepatorenal failure associated with hydrazine sulfate. Ann Intern Med 133:877–880

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL (1999) Patients looking for information on the Internet and seeking teleadvice: motivation, expectations, and misconceptions as expressed in e-mails sent to physicians. Arch Dermatol 135:151–156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Roscoe JA, Bushunow P, Morrow GR, Hickok JT, Kuebler PJ, Jacobs A, Banerjee TK (2004) Patient expectation is a strong predictor of severe nausea after chemotherapy: a University of Rochester Community Clinical Oncology Program study of patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer 101:2701–2708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 324:569–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weissenberger C, Schultze-Seemann W (2004) Letter to the editor: bladder cancer facts: accuracy of information on the Internet. J Urol 172(4 Pt 1):1544

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gaisser A, Stamatiadis-Smidt H (2004) Significance of information for cancer patients and the experience of the German Cancer Information Service in Heidelberg. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 47:957–968

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gilliam AD, Speake WJ, Scholefield JH, Beckingham IJ (2003) Finding the best from the rest: evaluation of the quality of patient information on the Internet. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 85:44–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weissenberger C, Jonassen S, Beranek-Chiu J, Neumann M, Muller D, Bartelt S, Schulz S, Monting JS, Henne K, Gitsch G, Witucki G (2004) Breast cancer: patient information needs reflected in English and German web sites. Br J Cancer 91:1482–1487

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bichakjian CK, Schwartz JL, Wang TS, Hall JM, Johnson TM, Biermann JS (2002) Melanoma information on the Internet: often incomplete—a public health opportunity? J Clin Oncol 20:134–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weissenberger C (2004) The Internet as an information source—establishing methods for the evaluation of information quality [Das Internet als Informationsquelle—Etablierung methodischer Verfahren zur Qualitätsevaluation]. In: Bartsch HH (ed) Information in Oncology [Information in der Onkologie]. Karger, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hinds C, Streater A, Mood D (1995) Functions and preferred methods of receiving information related to radiotherapy. Perceptions of patients with cancer. Cancer Nurs 18:374–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Simunovic M, Gafni A, Levine M (2004) Economics of preoperative radiotherapy with total mesorectal excision: what can we learn from the Dutch experience? J Clin Oncol 22:217–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Soualmia LF, Darmoni SJ, Le DF, Douyere M, Thelwall M (2002) Web impact factor: a bibliometric criterion applied to medical informatics societies’ web sites. Stud Health Technol Inform 90:178–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eysenbach G, Kohler C (2004) Health-related searches on the Internet. JAMA 291:2946

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Bahrani A, Plusa S (2004) The quality of patient-orientated Internet information on colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 6:323–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Chapple A, Ziebland S, McPherson A (2004) Stigma, shame, and blame experienced by patients with lung cancer: qualitative study. BMJ 328:1470

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Cram P, Fendrick AM, Inadomi J, Cowen ME, Carpenter D, Vijan S (2003) The impact of a celebrity promotional campaign on the use of colon cancer screening: the Katie Couric effect. Arch Intern Med 163:1601–1605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lebo H (2004) The digital future report (USC Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future): surveying the digital future—year four. http://www.digitalcenter.org/downloads/DigitalFutureReport-Year4-2004.pdf. Cited 13 January 2005

  31. Bykowski JL, Alora MB, Dover JS, Arndt KA (2000) Accessibility and reliability of cutaneous laser surgery information on the World Wide Web. J Am Acad Dermatol 42:784–786

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Liddy E (2001) How a search engine works. Searcher 9:5. http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/may01/liddy.htm. Cited 13 January 2005

  33. Wilson RF (1998) How to get higher in the search engines (the science of “gateway” pages). Web Market Today 49. http://www.wilsonweb.com/articles/search-higher.htm. Cited 13 January 2005

  34. Trumbo CW (2004) Cancer information on the World Wide Web: gross characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:332–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Page L, Brin S (2002) Technology behind Google. http://www.google.com. Cited 22 July 2004

  36. Search Engine Optimization Ethics (2002) Link popularity analysis. http://www.searchengineethics.com. Cited 13 January 2005

  37. Jitaru E, Moisil I, Jitaru M-C (1999) Criteria for evaluating the quality of health related sites on Internet. MEDINF 2000—The 23rd national conference on medical informatics: telemedicine and telematics, Iasi, 2–4 November 2000

  38. Rustgi AK (2001) Entangled in a Web(site)? Gastroenterology 120:1321

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Sascha Wanders, Felix Heinemann, Thomas Bach, Christina Müller, Hanin Matar, and Sibylle Weissenberger for technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospital of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Strasse 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Christian Weissenberger, David Müller, Jan Beranek-Chiu, Marcus Neumann, Susanne Bartelt & Karl Henne

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Sinje Jonassen

  3. Department of Medical Informatics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Stefan Schulz

  4. Department of Radiotherapy, Deaconess Hospital, Schwäbisch Hall, Germany

    Gerlo Witucki

  5. Department of Oncology, Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, Städtische Kliniken Esslingen, Hirschlandstrasse 97, 73730, Esslingen a. N., Germany

    Michael Geissler

  6. Department of Economics, Brooklyn College of the City, University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Joshua Fogel

Authors
  1. Christian Weissenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Beranek-Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcus Neumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sinje Jonassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Susanne Bartelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stefan Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gerlo Witucki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Karl Henne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michael Geissler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Joshua Fogel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Weissenberger.

Additional information

C. Weissenberger and D. Müller were equally contributed to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weissenberger, C., Müller, D., Beranek-Chiu, J. et al. Gastrointestinal cancer web sites: how do they address patients’ concerns?. Int J Colorectal Dis 21, 615–624 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-005-0046-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-005-0046-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation