Top

Obesity Surgery

Published in:

01-05-2018 | Original Contributions

Quality Assessment of Information on Bariatric Surgery Websites

Authors: Diana Vetter, Hendrik Ruhwinkel, Dimitri A. Raptis, Marco Bueter

Published in: Obesity Surgery | Issue 5/2018

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of patient information on bariatric surgery in the internet using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool.

Methods

Systematic review of information on bariatric surgery in the internet by entering common search terms into five search engines. The top 100 websites of every search term and search engine were assessed using the validated EQIP tool (maximum score, 36), which entails points for content, structure, and identification data of a given website. Websites at or above the 99th percentile were analyzed separately (n = 8).

Results

The median EQIP score of all included websites (n = 463) was 17 (IQR 15–19). While information on the medical problem, the indication for surgery, or the treatment alternatives was present in 84% of all websites, only 10% of the included websites contained adequate information on postoperative complications. Although quantitative information on incidence (37.5%) and treatment of complications (12.5%) was significantly better in the top 99th percentile websites, the content of relevant information such as occurrence and treatment of complications was still very limited.

Conclusion

The overall quality of patient information on bariatric surgery in the internet is relatively poor. Especially incidence of complications and their treatment are rarely reported even on websites with a 99th percentile EQIP score.

Available only for authorised users

Eurostat. Availa ble from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/data/database; http://www.webcitation.org/6r2zJ4bD4.

Madan AK, Frantzides CT, Pesce CE. The quality of information about laparoscopic bariatric surgery on the Internet. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(5):685–7.CrossRefPubMed

Eysenbach Gunther SER, Diepgen Thomas L. Shopping around the internet today and tomorrow: towards the millennium of cybermedicine. BMJ. 1999;319:1294.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2618–24.CrossRefPubMed

Sonnenberg FA. Health information on the Internet. Opportunities and pitfalls. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(2):151–2.CrossRefPubMed

Booth A. Netting the evidence: finding pearls, not sewage. Singapore Med J. 2006;47(12):1023–9.PubMed

Gowers SG, Shore A. The stigma of eating disorders. Int J Clin Pract. 1999;53(5):386–8.PubMed

O’Brien PE, Dixon JB. The extent of the problem of obesity. Am J Surg. 2002;184(6B):4S–8S.CrossRefPubMed

Wilson FL. Are patient information materials too difficult to read? Home Healthc Nurse. 2000;18(2):107–15.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Gibson PA, Ruby C, Craig MDA. Health/patient education database for family practice. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1991;79(4):357–69.PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al. An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Shepperd S, Charnock D, Cook A. A 5-star system for rating the quality of information based on DISCERN. Health Info Libr J. 2002;19(4):201–5.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor—Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244–5.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Moult B, Franck LS, Brady H. Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expect. 2004;7(2):165–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV. Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;70(3):407–11.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Frueh FS, Palma AF, Raptis DA, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome: analysis of online patient information with the EQIP tool. Chir Main. 2015;34(3):113–21.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Melloul E, Raptis DA, Oberkofler CE, et al. Donor information for living donor liver transplantation: where can comprehensive information be found? Liver Transpl. 2012;18(8):892–900.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Palma AF, Zuk G, Raptis DA, et al. Quality of information for women seeking breast augmentation in the Internet. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2016;50(5):262–71.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ademiluyi G, Rees CE, Sheard CE. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;50(2):151–5.CrossRefPubMed

20.

[20.03.2017]; Available from: http://rbiostatistics.com/node/1; http://www.webcitation.org/6r2xrt2QJ.

21.

Makar B, Quilliot D, Zarnegar R, et al. What is the quality of information about bariatric surgery on the internet? Obes Surg. 2008;18(11):1455–9.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, et al. Erratum to: bariatric surgery and Endoluminal procedures: IFSO worldwide survey 2014. Obes Surg. 2017;27(9):2290–2.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Corcelles R, Daigle CR, Talamas HR, et al. Assessment of the quality of internet information on sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2015;11(3):539–44.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:53–7.PubMed

Title: Quality Assessment of Information on Bariatric Surgery Websites
Authors: Diana Vetter
Hendrik Ruhwinkel
Dimitri A. Raptis
Marco Bueter
Publication date: 01-05-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Obesity Surgery / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0960-8923
Electronic ISSN: 1708-0428
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-2983-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Quality Assessment of Information on Bariatric Surgery Websites

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Preserving Duodenal-Jejunal (Foregut) Transit Does Not Impair Glucose Tolerance and Diabetes Remission Following Gastric Bypass in Type 2 Diabetes Sprague-Dawley Rat Model

A Single-center Experience Examining the Length of Stay and Safety of Early Discharge After Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery

Ileal Transposition (IT) Surgery Changing the Ultrastructure of the Transposed Segment as well as Jejunum. Histomorphometric and Electron Microscopy Analysis

Problematic Alcohol Use and Associated Characteristics Following Bariatric Surgery

Laparoscopic Treatment of Gastro-Gastric Fistula After RYGB: Technical Points

Upper Gastrointestinal Function in Morbidly Obese Adolescents Before and 6 Months After Gastric Banding