Advertisement

Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 676–679 | Cite as

Relative Quality of Internet-Derived Gastrointestinal Cancer Information

  • David S. Y. ChanEmail author
  • Anita Willicombe
  • Thomas D. Reid
  • Ceri Beaton
  • David Arnold
  • James Ward
  • I. Llion Davies
  • Wyn G. Lewis
Article

Abstract

Internet-derived health care information is increasingly accessed by patients, yet its quality and accuracy is variable and unregulated. The aim of this study was to assess the information available regarding common gastrointestinal cancers via three internet search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing). The top 30 websites for each of the terms: oesophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colon and rectal cancer were evaluated (University of Michigan Consumer Health Website Checklist) and scored [−80 (poor) to 90 (excellent)]. The median score was 53 (−7 to 81) and was significantly higher for oesophageal (61) and pancreatic (65) cancer websites, compared with gastric (49), colon (48) and rectal cancer (50) (p = 0.014). Median scores related to charitable organisations were significantly better than academic, commercial, news agency, care provider, layperson and medical information websites collectively (79 vs. 42, p < 0.0001). Overall quality of internet-derived gastrointestinal cancer information remains poor and patients and clinicians should be aware.

Keywords

Cancer Internet 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson PF, Allee N, Grove S, Hill S (1999) The University of Michigan Consumer Health Website Evaulation Checklist. www-personal.umich.edu/∼pfa/mlaguide/free/webeval.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2012
  2. 2.
    Bader JL, Theofanos MF (2003) Searching for cancer information on the internet: analyzing natural language search queries. J Med Internet Res 5(4):e31. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5.4.e31 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breckons M, Jones R, Morris J, Richardson J (2008) What do evaluation instruments tell us about the quality of complementary medicine information on the internet? J Med Internet Res 10(1):e3. doi: 10.2196/jmir.961 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castleton K, Fong T, Wang-Gillam A, Waqar MA, Jeffe DB, Kehlenbrink L, Gao F, Govindan R (2011) A survey of Internet utilization among patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer 19(8):1183–1190. doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-0935-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eysenbach G, Kohler Ch (2003) What is the prevalence of health-related searches on the World Wide Web? Qualitative and quantitative analysis of search engine queries on the internet. AMIA Annu Symp Proc:225–229Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goto Y, Sekine I, Sekiguchi H, Yamada K, Nokihara H, Yamamoto N, Kunitoh H, Ohe Y, Tamura T (2009) Differences in the quality of information on the internet about lung cancer between the United States and Japan. J Thorac Oncol 4(7):829–833. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a76fe1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Health Improvement Institute and Consumer Reports Web Watch. 2003. A report on the evaluation of criteria sets for assessing health web sites. http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/health-report-assessing-health-sites-abstract.cfm. Accessed 16 May 2012
  8. 8.
    McHugh SM, Corrigan M, Morney N, Sheikh A, Lehane E, Hill AD (2011) A quantitative assessment of changing trends in internet usage for cancer information. World J Surg 35(2):253–257. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0830-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, Hunt KK, Ames FC, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, Pollock RE, Musen MA, Singletary SE (2002) Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ 324(7337):577–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moran M, Oliver CW (2007) Content and design of patient-targeted websites in orthopaedic surgery: the example of total hip replacement. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 89:773–776. doi: 10.1308/003588407X209293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sajid MS, Iftikhar M, Monteiro RS, Miles AF, Woods WG, Baig MK (2008) Internet information on colorectal cancer: commercialization and lack of quality control. Colorectal Dis 10(4):352–356. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01316.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    SearchEngineWatch.com. 2012. Search Engine Watch. http://searchenginewatch.com. Accessed 16 May 2012
  13. 13.
    UK Cancer Research. 2012. Cancer research UK. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org. Accessed 16 May 2012

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David S. Y. Chan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anita Willicombe
    • 1
  • Thomas D. Reid
    • 1
  • Ceri Beaton
    • 1
  • David Arnold
    • 2
  • James Ward
    • 2
  • I. Llion Davies
    • 1
  • Wyn G. Lewis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Upper GI SurgeryUniversity Hospital of WalesCardiffUK
  2. 2.Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations