Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-06-2018 | Original Article

Assessment of readability, quality and popularity of online information on ureteral stents

Authors: Sarah Mozafarpour, Briony Norris, James Borin, Brian H. Eisner

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2018

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the quality and readability of online information on ureteral stents.

Methods

Google.com was queried using the search terms “ureteric stent”, “ureteral stent”, “double J stent” and, “Kidney stent” derived from Google AdWords. Website popularity was determined using Google Rank and the Alexa tool. Website quality assessment was performed using the following criteria: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, Health on the Net (HON) criteria, and a customized DISCERN questionnaire. The customized DISCERN questionnaire was developed by combining the short validated DISCERN questionnaire with additional stent-specific items including definition, placement, complications, limitations, removal and “when to seek help”. Scores related to stent items were considered as the “stent score” (SS). Readability was evaluated using five readability tests.

Results

Thirty-two websites were included. The mean customized DISCERN score and “stent score” were 27.1 ± 7.1 (maximum possible score = 59) and 14.6 ± 3.8 (maximum possible score = 24), respectively. A minority of websites adequately addressed “stent removal” and “when to seek medical attention”. Only two websites (6.3%) had HON certification (drugs.com, radiologyinfo.org) and only one website (3.3%) met all JAMA criteria (bradyurology.blogspot.com). Readability level was higher than the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth-grade level for more than 75% of the websites. There was no correlation between Google rank, Alexa rank, and the quality scores (P > 0.05).

Discussion

Among the 32 most popular websites on the topic of ureteral stents, online information was highly variable. The readability of many of the websites was far higher than standard recommendations and the online information was questionable in many cases. These findings suggest a need for improved online resources in order to better educate patients about ureteral stents and also should inform physicians that popular websites may have incomplete information.

Gibbons RP, Correa RJ Jr, Cummings KB, Mason JT (1976) Experience with indwelling ureteral stent catheters. J Urol 115(1):22–26CrossRefPubMed

Chew BH, Knudsen BE, Denstedt JD (2004) The use of stents in contemporary urology. Curr Opin Urol 14(2):111–115CrossRefPubMed

Agency for healthcare research and quality R M. HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) (2014) Healthcare cost and utilization project (HCUP). Available from: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp

Leibovici D, Cooper A, Lindner A, Ostrowsky R, Kleinmann J, Velikanov S et al (2005) Ureteral stents: morbidity and impact on quality of life. Isr Med Assoc J 7(8):491–494PubMed

Jlala HA, French JL, Foxall GL, Hardman JG, Bedforth NM (2010) Effect of preoperative multimedia information on perioperative anxiety in patients undergoing procedures under regional anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 104(3):369–374CrossRefPubMed

Sjoling M, Nordahl G, Olofsson N, Asplund K (2003) The impact of preoperative information on state anxiety, postoperative pain and satisfaction with pain management. Patient Educ Couns 51(2):169–176CrossRefPubMed

Susan F: Pew Internet Health Update. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Internet Health Update, http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/09/main-findings-11

Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA (1997) Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277(15):1244–1245CrossRefPubMed

Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD (1998) The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health Websites. Comput Biol Med 28(5):603–610CrossRefPubMed

10.

Health on the Net Foundation, the HON code of conduct for medical and health websites (HONcode). Available from: https://www.healthonnet.org/honcode/conduct.html)

11.

Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(2):105–111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Fast AM, Deibert CM, Boyer C, Hruby GW, McKiernan JM (2012) Partial nephrectomy online: a preliminary evaluation of the quality of health information on the Internet. BJU Int 110(11 Pt B):E765–E769CrossRefPubMed

13.

Joury AU, Alshathri M, Alkhunaizi M, Jaleesah N, Pines JM (2016) Internet websites for chest pain symptoms demonstrate highly variable content and quality. Acad Emerg Med 23(10):1146–1152CrossRefPubMed

14.

Crozier-Shaw G, Queally JM, Quinlan JF (2016) Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: quality of online patient information. Orthopedics 40(2):1–7

15.

Sadowski DJ, Ellimoottil CS, Tejwani A, Gorbonos A (2013) Proton therapy for prostate cancer online: patient education or marketing? Can J Urol 20(6):7015–7020PubMed

16.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRefPubMed

17.

Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32(3):221–233CrossRefPubMed

18.

Smith EA, and Senter RJ (1967) United States. Air Force. Automated Readability Index. Dayton: Wright-Patterson AFB, Aerospace Medical Division. Print

19.

Raygor AL (1977) The Raygor Readability Estimate: a quick and easy way to determine difficulty. In: Pearson PD, ed. Reading: Theory, Research, and Practice—The 26th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference, 259–263

20.

Blanchett KD (2011) Transforming the medical information landscape: think tank explores new media applications. BJU Int 107(8):2–5

21.

Eysenbach G (2003) The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 53(6):356–371CrossRefPubMed

22.

Borgmann H, Wolm JH, Vallo S, Mager R, Huber J, Breyer J et al (2015) Prostate cancer on the web-expedient tool for patients’ decision-making? J Cancer Educ 32(1):135–140CrossRef

23.

Redmond CE, Nason GJ, Kelly ME, McMahon C, Cantwell CP, Quinlan DM (2015) Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: is the information accessible, usable, reliable and readable? Curr Urol 8(1):32–37CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Sahin C, Tuncer M, Yazici O, Kafkasli A, Can U, Eryildirim B et al (2014) The importance of internet usage for urologic patients. Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia 86(4):261–265CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lawrentschuk N, Abouassaly R, Hackett N, Groll R, Fleshner NE (2009) Health information quality on the internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation. Urology 74(5):1058–1063CrossRefPubMed

26.

Agricola E, Gesualdo F, Pandolfi E, Gonfiantini MV, Carloni E, Mastroiacovo P et al (2013) Does googling for preconception care result in information consistent with international guidelines: a comparison of information found by Italian women of childbearing age and health professionals. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

BD W (2007) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. 2ed

28.

Sobota A, Ozakinci G (2015) The quality and readability of online consumer information about gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 25(3):537–541CrossRefPubMed

29.

Fast AM, Deibert CM, Hruby GW, Glassberg KI (2013) Evaluating the quality of Internet health resources in pediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol 9(2):151–156CrossRefPubMed

30.

Schreuders EH, Grobbee EJ, Kuipers EJ, Spaander MC, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ (2016) Variable quality and readability of patient-oriented websites on colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.06.029 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Cheng C, Dunn M (2015) Health literacy and the internet: a study on the readability of Australian online health information. Aust N Z J Public Health 39(4):309–314CrossRefPubMed

32.

Sharma N, Tridimas A, Fitzsimmons PR (2014) A readability assessment of online stroke information. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 23(6):1362–1367CrossRefPubMed

33.

Borgmann H, Mager R, Salem J, Brundl J, Kunath F, Thomas C et al (2015) Robotic prostatectomy on the web: a cross-sectional qualitative assessment. Clin Genitourin Cancer 14(4):e355–e362CrossRefPubMed

34.

Colaco M, Svider PF, Agarwal N, Eloy JA, Jackson IM (2013) Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials. J Urol 189(3):1048–1052CrossRefPubMed

35.

Abt D, Warzinek E, Schmid HP, Haile SR, Engeler DS (2015) Influence of patient education on morbidity caused by ureteral stents. Int J Urol 22(7):679–683CrossRefPubMed

36.

Horner SD, Surratt D, Juliusson S (2000) Improving readability of patient education materials. J Community Health Nurs 17(1):15–23CrossRefPubMed

37.

Sheppard ED, Hyde Z, Florence MN, McGwin G, Kirchner JS, Ponce BA (2014) Improving the readability of online foot and ankle patient education materials. Foot Ankle Int 35(12):1282–1286CrossRefPubMed

Title: Assessment of readability, quality and popularity of online information on ureteral stents
Authors: Sarah Mozafarpour
Briony Norris
James Borin
Brian H. Eisner
Publication date: 01-06-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2179-9

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Assessment of readability, quality and popularity of online information on ureteral stents

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Discussion

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Discussion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Prospective randomised controlled trial of written supplement to verbal communication of results to patients at the time of flexible cystoscopy

Increasing the size of ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery improves surgical efficiency without increasing complications

Long-term oncological outcomes after robotic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a prospective multicentre study

Thromboprophylaxis and the route of administration of chemotherapy in testicular cancer patients in German-speaking countries

Rare and changeable as a chameleon: paraneoplastic syndromes in renal cell carcinoma

The effect of corticosteroid on postoperative early pain, renal colic and total analgesic consumption after uncomplicated and unstented ureteroscopy: a matched-pair analysis