Quality of patient information online for rectal prolapse

Sehgal, Amit; Scott, Fraser; Joshi, H. M.; Gosselink, M.

doi:10.1007/s10151-016-1434-6

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall poor quality is consistent with findings presented by Sehgal et al [ 11 ], which reported the poor quality of online patient information for full-thickness rectal prolapse, but based results on the DISCERN instrument alone. The data from our study are of additional value, as it also provides the additional dimensions of Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease and IPDASi scores.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…In our study, private healthcare resources describing only the surgical management of full-thickness rectal prolapse had the poorest quality of written information, indicated by low DISCERN and IPDAS scores and high Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease scores. In addition, these sources did not support shared decision-making, as seen in previous work [ 7 , 9 – 11 ]. Only one source evaluated by the DISCERN instrument was of high overall quality, but remained difficult to read.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…All searches used the following four pre-defined search strings: ‘rectal prolapse’, ‘rectal prolapse surgery’, ‘rectal prolapse operation’ and ‘rectal prolapse repair’. These lay searches aimed to capture a typical patient search, an approach adapted from similar studies in colorectal disease [ 10 , 12 ], and expanded from a previous rectal prolapse study [ 11 ]. Searches from the repositories included any online decision aids.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of online resources to support patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe internet is becoming an increasingly popular resource to support patient decision-making outside of the clinical encounter. The quality of online health information is variable and largely unregulated. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online resources to support patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery.MethodsThis systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42017058319). Searches were performed on Google and specialist decision aid repositories using a pre-defined search strategy. Sources were analysed according to three measures: (1) their readability using the Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease score, (2) DISCERN score and (3) International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) minimum standards criteria score (IPDASi, v4.0).ResultsOverall, 95 sources were from Google and the specialist decision aid repositories. There were 53 duplicates removed, and 18 sources did not meet the pre-defined eligibility criteria, leaving 24 sources included in the full-text analysis. The mean Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease score was higher than recommended for patient education materials (48.8 ± 15.6, range 25.2–85.3). Overall quality of sources supporting patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery was poor (median DISCERN score 1/5 ± 1.18, range 1–5). No sources met minimum decision-making standards (median IPDASi score 5/12 ± 2.01, range 1–8).ConclusionsCurrently, easily accessible online health information to support patient decision-making for rectal surgery is of poor quality, difficult to read and does not support shared decision-making. It is recommended that professional bodies and medical professionals seek to develop decision aids to support decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of online resources to support patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can have real consequences for accessibility of information to a wider demographic and those from different socio‐economic strata in understanding, interpreting and participating fully in a shared decision‐making process. Thus, those involved in creation of patient literature should pay consideration to assess and calculate the readability of resources prior to publication to allow accessibility to a wider cohort of patients [12, 13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Online Patient Resources to Support Shared Decision Making for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background RCS Eng, the Royal College of Surgeons of England, has published much information with regard to the consenting process. A majority of patients seek health information through online resources as well as discussing with the care givers. Therefore, it is necessary that online material is both of high quality and reliable for patients. We aimed to evaluate the quality and standard of the online patient information on laparoscopic cholecystectomy to help in the consenting process. Methods A search was carried out as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Sources were assessed using five validated scoring tools: Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease Score (readability), DISCERN and IPDAS scores (quality of content) and HONcode and the Information Standard Certification (standards of accreditation). Results The average readability of all websites was higher than recommended for patient literature. Less than half of the sources had received HONcode or Information Standard accreditation. On grading of quality and content, across validated scoring tools, no source achieved the minimum recommended level. Conclusion Online patient information related to laparoscopic cholecystectomy is of poor quality. We recommend a multidisciplinary approach to participate in publishing more readable online resources of a higher standard to help patients and clinicians in consent and shared decision making.

show abstract

Systematic review of online patient resources to support shared decision making for bariatric surgery

Musbahi

Brown

Reddy

et al. 2020

International Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality of patient information online for rectal prolapse

Cited by 4 publications

References 5 publications

A systematic review of online resources to support patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery

A systematic review of online resources to support patient decision-making for full-thickness rectal prolapse surgery

A Systematic Review of Online Patient Resources to Support Shared Decision Making for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Systematic review of online patient resources to support shared decision making for bariatric surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About