Patient information about general anaesthesia on the internet

Abstract

SummaryThe internet is a frequently consulted source of health information. Using the Google search engine, we searched for patient information about general anaesthesia on the world wide web, using four synonyms of the term in four languages and analysing the top 20 results. Of the 320 search results, 104 (32%) contained relevant information: 36 (45%) with the English (UK); 39 (49%) with the English (US); 13 (16%) with the Swedish; and 16 (20%) with the Finnish search terms (p < 0.001). 'Good' websites, defined as those with a DISCERN rating of 4-5 stars, were found in all languages: 12 with the English (UK); 11 with the English (US); two with the Swedish; and one with the Finnish search terms (p = 0.012). Few good websites showed a reading grade level of £ 8 that is recommended for consumer health information. Of the good quality sites, 18 ⁄ 22 (82%) remained within the top 20, three months later. General anaesthesia is an invasive procedure connected with significant health risks, although they are rare. Most patients prefer to be informed by their anaesthetist face to face, but the opportunity to look for confirmation in writing is also valued [1][2][3]. Nowadays, the internet is an easily available source of all kinds of information. It is also consulted frequently for health-related issues [4][5][6].Usually consumers look for online medical information on their own initiative. Most type a simple search term in a general search engine, then visit some of the first websites on the list, and try again with another search term, if necessary [5][6][7][8]. Most searches are conducted in the native language [9]. However, medical information is often found difficult to read by adults without academic education [10], and because the internet allows anyone to publish medical information, whether evidence-based or anecdotal, it can serve as a source of misinformation [11,12]. Numerous tools have been developed to help evaluate health-related websites, including quality rating educational tools, accreditation and quality labels, and filters [13]. However, it is not known which instruments, if any, are simple enough to be practical in everyday use [14,15], and they are rarely utilised by consumers [6,13,15]. The aim of this study was to assess if good information about general anaesthesia is easily available for patients on the internet.

Quality of health information for consumers on the web: A systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results

“…The other concern raised involved the validity of some of the popular instruments. A number of the articles in the sample reported conflicting results concerning the ability of DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA benchmarks to predict health information quality (e.g., Bailey et al, 2012;Barnes, 2009;Hendrick et al, 2012;Tallgren & Backlund, 2009;Tavare et al, 2012;Yeo et al, 2007).…”

Assessment of the Quality of Web-based Information on Bunions

“…This tool possesses moderate to very good strength of interobserver agreement, ranging from κ .41 to .82. 1,17,26 DISCERN is appropriate for anyone who utilizes or produces information about treatment choices. Its uses are diverse, including an aide for consumers who are making decisions about treatment, a checklist for authors of written consumer health information, and a training tool for clinicians to improve communication and shared decision-making skills.…”

Opening up the black box: an introduction to qualitative research methods in anaesthesia

“…Numerous studies demonstrate useful synergy between the two research traditions, including ‘mixed‐methods’ studies comprising both qualitative and quantitative study of the same problem or phenomena , qualitative work that is analysed with statistical methods , ‘cohort’ studies that have quantitative outcomes but are observational in nature , surveys and proforma‐based studies combining forced‐choice and free‐text data , and experimental studies that collect data using qualitative methods . That the authors of such work have chosen to combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research to address complex questions is further evidence that the boundaries between qualitative and quantitative research are less distinct than they may at first appear.…”