An Evaluation of the Content Quality, Readability, and Reliability of Publicly Available Web-Based Information on Pneumothorax Surgery in Ireland.

Autor:	Ho MP; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Cork, IRL., Abrar S; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Cork, IRL., Higgins PP; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Cork, IRL., Doddakula KK; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Cork, IRL.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Cureus [Cureus] 2024 Jul 04; Vol. 16 (7), pp. e63800. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 04 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.7759/cureus.63800
Abstrakt:	Introduction The internet is increasingly the first port of call for patients introduced to new treatments. Unfortunately, many websites are of poor quality, thereby limiting patients' ability to make informed health decisions. Within thoracic surgery, the treatment options for pneumothoraces may be less intuitive for patients to understand compared to procedures such as lobectomies and wedge resections. Therefore, patients must receive high-quality information to make informed treatment decisions. No study to date has evaluated online information regarding pneumothorax surgery. Knowledge regarding the same may allow physicians to recommend appropriate websites to patients and supplement remaining knowledge gaps. Objective This study aims to evaluate the content, readability, and reliability of online information regarding pneumothorax surgery. Methods A total of 11 search terms including "pneumothorax surgery," "pleurectomy," and "pleurodesis" were each entered into Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The top 20 websites found through each search were screened, yielding 660 websites. Only free websites designed for patient consumption that provided information on pneumothorax surgery were included. This criterion excluded 581 websites, leaving 79 websites to be evaluated. To evaluate website reliability, the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) and DISCERN benchmark criteria were applied. To evaluate the readability, 10 standardized tools were utilized including the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score. To evaluate website content, a novel, self-designed 10-part questionnaire was utilized to assess whether information deemed essential by the authors was included. It evaluated whether websites comprehensively described the surgery process for patients, including pre- and post-operative care. Website authorship and year of publication were also noted. Results The mean JAMA score was 1.69 ± 1.29 out of 4, with only nine websites achieving all four reliability criteria. The median readability score was 13.42 (IQR: 11.48-16.23), which corresponded to a 13th-14th school grade standard. Only four websites were written at a sixth-grade reading level. In the novel content questionnaire, 31.6% of websites (n = 25) did not mention any side effects of pneumothorax surgery. Similarly, 39.2% (n = 31) did not mention alternative treatment options. There was no correlation between the date of website update and JAMA (r = 0.158, p = 0.123), DISCERN (r = 0.098, p = 0.341), or readability (r = 0.053, p = 0.606) scores. Conclusion Most websites were written above the sixth-grade reading level, as recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Furthermore, the exclusion of essential information regarding pneumothorax surgery from websites highlights the current gaps in online information. These findings emphasize the need to create and disseminate comprehensive, reliable websites on pneumothorax surgery that enable patients to make informed health decisions. Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. (Copyright © 2024, Ho et al.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu