Top

Published in:

01-05-2019 | Original Article

Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet

Authors: Vishalli Ghai, Vasilios Pergialiotis, Haider Jan, James M. N. Duffy, Stergios K. Doumouchtsis, On behalf of CHORUS: an International Collaboration Harmonising Outcomes, Research, and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 5/2019

Abstract

Objective

There is no systematic evaluation of online health information pertaining to obstetric anal sphincter injury. Therefore, we evaluated the accuracy, credibility, reliability, and readability of online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury.

Materials and methods

Multiple search engines were searched. The first 30 webpages were identified for each keyword and considered eligible if they provided information regarding obstetric anal sphincter injury. Eligible webpages were assessed by two independent researchers for accuracy (prioritised criteria based upon the RCOG Third and Fourth Degree Tear guideline); credibility; reliability; and readability.

Results

Fifty-eight webpages were included. Seventeen webpages (30%) had obtained Health On the Net certification, or Information Standard approval and performed better than those without such approvals (p = 0.039). The best overall performing website was http://www.pat.nhs.uk (score of 146.7). A single webpage (1%) fulfilled the entire criteria for accuracy with a score of 18: www.tamesidehospital.nhs.uk. Twenty-nine webpages (50%) were assessed as credible (scores ≥7). A single webpage achieved a maximum credibility score of 10: www.meht.nhs.uk. Over a third (21 out of 58) were rated as poor or very poor. The highest scoring webpage was http://www.royalsurrey.nhs.uk (score 62). No webpage met the recommended Flesch Reading Ease Score above 70. The intra-class coefficient between researchers was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89–0.96) for accuracy and reliability assessments.

Conclusion

Online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury often uses language that is inappropriate for a lay audience and lacks sufficient accuracy, credibility, and reliability.

Available only for authorised users

Sultan AH. Editorial: obstetrical perineal injury and anal incontinence. AVMA Med Legal J. 2016;5:193–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/135626229900500601.CrossRef

Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, et al. Impact of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears at first birth on subsequent pregnancy outcomes: a cohort study. BJOG. 2014;121:1695–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12886.CrossRefPubMed

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears. p. 1–19. 2015. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg29/. Accessed 8 February 2018.

Abdool Z, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Postpartum female sexual function. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;145:133–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.04.014.CrossRefPubMed

Roos A-M, Sultan AH, Thakar R. Sexual problems in the gynecology clinic: are we making a mountain out of a molehill? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:145–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1516-y.CrossRefPubMed

Borello-France D, Burgio KL, Richter HE, et al. Fecal and urinary incontinence in primiparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:863–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000232504.32589.3b.CrossRefPubMed

Duggan M, Fox S. Health Online 2013. 2013. 1–55. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online.aspx. Accessed 21 February 2018.

Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Fox S. Health Topics. 2011. 1–33. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/HealthTopics.aspx. Accessed 8t February 2018.

11.

Healthy people 2010: understanding and improving health. 2010. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2010/Document/pdf/uih/2010uih.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2018.

12.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Sacchetti P, Zvara P, Plante MK. The internet and patient education—resources and their reliability: focus on a select urologic topic. Urology. 1999;53:1117–20.CrossRefPubMed

14.

American Public Health Association. Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the internet. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:513–4.CrossRefPubMedCentral

15.

Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:105–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Kincaid JP, Fishburn RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air Station; Memphis, TN; 1975.

17.

Hirsch M, Aggarwal S, Barker C, et al. Googling endometriosis: a systematic review of information available on the internet. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:451–8.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.1007.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Fioretti BTS, Reiter M, Betrán AP, Torloni MR. Googling caesarean section: a survey on the quality of the information available on the internet. BJOG. 2015;122:731–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13081.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the world wide web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005;74:13–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Henderson EM, Rosser BA, Keogh E, Eccleston C. Internet sites offering adolescents help with headache, abdominal pain, and dysmenorrhoea: a description of content, quality, and peer interactions. J Pediatr Psychol. 2012;37:262–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsr100.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Dueñas-Garcia OF, Kandadai P, Flynn MK, et al. Patient-focused websites related to stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a DISCERN quality analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:875–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2615-3.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Tirlapur SA, Leiu C, Khan KS. Quality of information on the internet related to bladder pain syndrome: a systematic review of the evidence. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1257–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2091-1.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Arif N, Ghezzi P. Breast cancer information on the internet: type of websites, accuracy and readability of online resources. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.544.CrossRef

24.

Roughead T, Sewell D, Ryerson CJ, et al. Internet-based resources frequently provide inaccurate and out-of-date recommendations on preoperative fasting: a systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2016;123:1463–8. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001590.CrossRefPubMed

25.

McKearney TC, McKearney RM. The quality and accuracy of internet information on the subject of ear tubes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77:894–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.021.CrossRefPubMed

26.

O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C, et al. Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the internet. Spine. 2014;39:E645–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000282.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Sethuram R, Weerakkody ANA. Health information on the internet. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30:119–21. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443610903440927.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, et al. Patients’ use of the internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:180–5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10603.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: patient perceptions. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1727–34. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.14.1727.CrossRefPubMed

30.

De Boer MJ, Versteegen GJ, van Wijhe M. Patients’ use of the internet for pain-related medical information. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68:86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.012.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Car J, Lang B, Colledge A, et al. Interventions for enhancing consumers’ online health literacy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;74:CD007092. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007092.pub2.CrossRef

Title: Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet
Authors: Vishalli Ghai
Vasilios Pergialiotis
Haider Jan
James M. N. Duffy
Stergios K. Doumouchtsis
On behalf of CHORUS: an International Collaboration Harmonising Outcomes, Research, and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health
Publication date: 01-05-2019
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3753-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

A Danish national population-based cohort study of synthetic midurethral slings, 2007–2011

Managing female urethral diverticulum with a standardized technique using a pacifier-trick artifice to facilitate dissection

Validation of a water-load protocol to define the pattern of bladder sensation

Association of baseline severity of lower urinary tract symptoms with the success conservative therapy for urinary incontinence in women

Retrospective review of intra- and post-operative complications with minimal versus large space of Retzius infiltration at the time of retropubic TVT placement

Ultrasound visualization of sacrocolpopexy polyvinylidene fluoride meshes containing paramagnetic Fe particles compared with polypropylene mesh