Skip to main content

Oncology Health Information Quality on the Internet: a Multilingual Evaluation

Annals of Surgical Oncology volume 19, pages 706–713 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Oncologic Internet information quality is considered variable, but no comprehensive analysis exists to support this. We compared the quality of common malignancy Web sites to assess them for language or disease differences and to perform a quality comparison between medical and layperson terminology.

Methods

World Health Organization Health on the Net (HON) principles may be applied to Web sites by using an automated toolbar function. We used the Google search engine (http://www.google.com) to assess 10,200 Web sites using the keywords “Breast,” “Colorectal,” “Stomach,” “Liver,” “Pancreas,” “Bile Duct,” “Melanoma,” and “Thyroid,” plus “cancer,” in English, French, German, and Spanish. The searches were then repeated with alternative terms, such as “Bowel” and “Skin cancer.”

Results

Less than a quarter of Web sites are HON accredited, with significant differences by malignancy type (P < 0.0001), language (P < 0.0001), and tertiles of the first 150 Web sites returned (P < 0.0001). French-language queries resulted in the most accredited Web sites returned. The use of alternative terms resulted in marked differences in accredited Web sites for hepatobiliary cancers.

Conclusions

A lack of validation of most oncologic sites is present, with discrepancies in the quality and number of Web sites across diseases and languages, as well as medical and alternative terms. Physicians should encourage and participate in the development of informative, ethical, and reliable health Web sites on the Internet and direct patients to them.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Risk A, Dzenowagis J. Review of Internet health information quality initiatives. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3:E28.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Couper MP, Singer E, Levin CA, Fowler FJ Jr, Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Use of the Internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: results from the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(5 Suppl):106S–14S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Menon M. Editorial comment on: laparoscopy in German urology: changing acceptance among urologists. Eur Urol. 2009;56:1080–1.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. DaJusta DG, Mueller TJ, Barone JG. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competency-based on-line computer course in pediatric oncology for urology residents. Urology. 2008;71:818–20.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Babamiri K, Nassab RS. The availability and content analysis of melanoma information on YouTube. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:51e–2e.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lawrentschuk N, Abouassaly R, Hackett N, Groll R, Fleshner NE. Health information quality on the Internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation. Urology. 2009;74:1058–63.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen X, Siu LL. Impact of the media and the Internet on oncology: survey of cancer patients and oncologists in Canada. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4291–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Menon M, Bhandari M. Unhappy patients: musings of two surgical nihilists. Eur Urol. 2008;54:723–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Petersen C. How to trust information on the Internet. Med Forum Int. 2003;8:1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285:2612–21.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Health on the Net Foundation. HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) for medical and health Web sites. http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/. 2008.

  12. Eysenbach G, Kohler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):573–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gaudinat A, Grabar N, Boyer C. Machine learning approach for automatic quality criteria detection of health Web pages. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 1):705–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaimal AJ, Cheng YW, Bryant AS, Norton ME, Shaffer BL, Caughey AB. Google obstetrics: who is educating our patients? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(682):e1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eastham JA. Robotic-assisted prostatectomy: is there truth in advertising? Eur Urol. 2008;54:720–2.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Avery KN, Blazeby JM, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Donovan JL. Decision-making about PSA testing and prostate biopsies: a qualitative study embedded in a primary care randomised trial. Eur Urol. 2008;53:1186–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith RP, Devine P, Jones H, DeNittis A, Whittington R, Metz JM. Internet use by patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Urology. 2003;62:273–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang AJ, Bhayani SB. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive procedures. Urology. 2009;73:306–10.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ekman A, Hall P, Litton JE. Can we trust cancer information on the Internet? A comparison of interactive cancer risk sites. Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16:765–72.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Air M, Roman SA, Yeo H, et al. Outdated and incomplete: a review of thyroid cancer on the World Wide Web. Thyroid. 2007;17:259–65.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Killeen S, Hennessey A, El Hassan Y, et al. Gastric cancer-related information on the Internet: incomplete, poorly accessible, and overly commercial. Am J Surg. 2011;20:171–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoppe IC. Readability of patient information regarding breast cancer prevention from the Web site of the National Cancer Institute. J Cancer Educ. 2010;25:490–2.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nagler RH, Gray SW, Romantan A, et al. Differences in information seeking among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients: results from a population-based survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(Suppl):S54–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nguyen KD, Hara B, Chlebowski RT. Utility of two cancer organization websites for a multiethnic, public hospital oncology population: comparative cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7:e28.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mayer MA, Karkaletsis V, Stamatakis K, et al. MedIEQ—quality labelling of medical Web content using multilingual information extraction. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;121:183–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Boyer C, Baujard V, Griesser V, Scherrer JR. HONselect: a multilingual and intelligent search tool integrating heterogeneous Web resources. Int J Med Inform. 2001;64:253–8.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee CJ, Gray SW, Lewis N. Internet use leads cancer patients to be active health care consumers. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(Suppl):S63–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Black PC, Penson DF. Prostate cancer on the Internet—information or misinformation? J Urol. 2006;175:1836–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nagler RH, Romantan A, Kelly BJ, et al. How do cancer patients navigate the public information environment? Understanding patterns and motivations for movement among information sources. J Cancer Educ. 2010;25:360–70.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I.D.D. is an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellow. We acknowledge Britta B. Bene and R. Gerardo Martinez for assisting with translations.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

    Nathan Lawrentschuk PhD, Andrew M. Scott MD & Ian D. Davis PhD

  2. Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Nathan Lawrentschuk PhD

  3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Deborah Sasges MD & Robert Tasevski FRACS

  4. Urological Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Robert Abouassaly MD

  5. Department of Medicine, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Andrew M. Scott MD & Ian D. Davis PhD

Authors
  1. Nathan Lawrentschuk PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deborah Sasges MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Tasevski FRACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Abouassaly MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew M. Scott MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ian D. Davis PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Lawrentschuk PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lawrentschuk, N., Sasges, D., Tasevski, R. et al. Oncology Health Information Quality on the Internet: a Multilingual Evaluation. Ann Surg Oncol 19, 706–713 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-2137-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-2137-x

Keywords

  • Bile Duct
  • Bile Duct Cancer
  • Alternative Term
  • Internet Information
  • Urologic Malignancy