Quality of Online Information Regarding Cervical Cancer

Abstract

The internet is an important source of health information, and yet the quality of the resources that patients' access can vary widely. Previous research has evaluated the quality of information for several types of cancer; however, this has not yet been done for cervical cancer beyond treatment information. The goal of this project was to systematically evaluate the quality of resources for cervical cancer information available against a range of metrics, including content breadth and accuracy, readability, and accountability. Methods An internet search was performed using the term "cervical cancer" using Google and two metasearch engines, Dogpile and Yippy. The top-100 websites returned across all three engines were evaluated using a validated structured rating tool. Results Only 32% of websites disclosed their author and only 38% used citations, while 64% of websites had been updated in the last two years. Readability was at university-level or higher for 19% of websites, and high-school level for 78%. Coverage was highest for etiology and risk factors (93% of websites) and prevention strategies such as pap smears and vaccines (92%); coverage was lowest for prognosis (49%), staging (52%), side effects (47%), and follow-up (25%). When a topic was covered the information was predominantly accurate, and few websites had inaccurate information. At least one social-media platform was linked to by 79% of websites. Conclusions This project highlights the strengths and limitations in the quality of the top-100 informational cervical cancer websites. These findings can inform the dialogue between health care providers and patients around selecting and evaluating information resources. These findings can also inform specific improvements to make online resources for cervical cancer more accessible, comprehensive, and relevant to patients.

Readability Assessment of HPV Vaccination and Cervical Cancer Information: A Systematic Scoping Review

“…Table 1 provides an overview of the included studies. Seven studies were conducted in the United States [19][20][21][22][23][24][25], three in Canada [26][27][28] one in China [29], and one in Japan [30]. Ten studies conducted in the United States and Canada assessed materials in English; the other two studies assessed materials in Chinese or Japanese language.…”

“…Ten studies conducted in the United States and Canada assessed materials in English; the other two studies assessed materials in Chinese or Japanese language. Regarding content, eight studies assessed HPV vaccination information [19,[21][22][23][27][28][29][30]; four assessed cervical cancer information [20,[24][25][26]. Regarding format, eight studies assessed online information and websites [19][20][21]23,26,27,29,30]; one assessed printed HPV vaccination counseling materials [22]; one assessed patient consent forms for radiation therapy for cervical cancer [24], one assessed newspaper articles regarding HPV vaccines [28], and one study assessed written materials on cervical cancer prevention [25].…”

“…Regarding content, eight studies assessed HPV vaccination information [19,[21][22][23][27][28][29][30]; four assessed cervical cancer information [20,[24][25][26]. Regarding format, eight studies assessed online information and websites [19][20][21]23,26,27,29,30]; one assessed printed HPV vaccination counseling materials [22]; one assessed patient consent forms for radiation therapy for cervical cancer [24], one assessed newspaper articles regarding HPV vaccines [28], and one study assessed written materials on cervical cancer prevention [25]. Regarding providers, eight studies reported on informational materials provided by commercial websites [26,29] governments [21,27], gynecologic oncology groups [24], health professionals and nonhealth professionals [30], national newspapers [28], and multiple sources [25].…”

“…All 10 studies from the United States and Canada reported that most of the information assessed was higher than eighth-grade reading level [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. These studies showed that there was little information on HPV vaccination and cervical cancer written at the recommended fifth-to sixth-grade level or lower.…”

“…As Table 1 shows, six studies reported the characteristics of informational materials, other than readability levels [22,[24][25][26][27]29]. Three studies used the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) [22,24,25].…”