Quality of online pediatric orthopaedic education materials

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

Volumn 96, Issue 23, 2014, Pages e194(1)-

  Feghhi, Daniel P ^a   Komlos, Daniel ^a   Agarwal, Nitin ^a   Sabharwal, Sanjeev ^a  

^a RUTGERS NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CHILD; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; PATIENT EDUCATION; QUALITY CONTROL; READING; RELIABILITY; WEB BROWSER; ACCESS TO INFORMATION; EVALUATION STUDY; INTERNET; MEDICAL SOCIETY; ORTHOPEDICS; PEDIATRICS; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CHILD; HUMANS; INTERNET; ORTHOPEDICS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PEDIATRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84916884413     PISSN: 00219355     EISSN: 15351386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00043     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Oct;63(1-2):24-8. Epub 2006 Jan 6.
2. Hart A, Henwood F, Wyatt S. The role of the Internet in patient-practitioner relationships: findings from a qualitative research study. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 30;6(3):e36. Epub 2004 Sep 30.
3. Ilic D. The role of the internet on patient knowledge management, education, and decision-making. Telemed J E Health. 2010 Jul-Aug;16(6):664-9.
4. Fox S, Duggan M. Pew research Internet project. Heath online 2013. 2013 Jan 15. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online.aspx. Accessed 2013 Jul 1.
5. Purcell GP, Wilson P, Delamothe T. The quality of health information on the internet. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):557-8.
6. Chalmers I. Invalid health information is potentially lethal. BMJ. 2001 Apr 21; 322(7292):998.
7. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S. Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Oct;468(10):2572-80.
8. Albright J, de Guzman C, Acebo P, Paiva D, Faulkner M, Swanson J. Readability of patient education materials: implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res. 1996 Aug;9(3):139-43.
9. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS, Nurss J. The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. Am J Public Health. 1997 Jun;87(6):1027-30.
10. Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer A, Kindig D. Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: National Academics Press; 2004.
11. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S. Readability of patient education materials from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America web sites. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jan;90(1):199-204.
12. Tomlin A, Badenoch D. The LIDA instrument. Minervation validation instrument for health care web sites. 2007. http://www.minervation.com/wp-content/ uploads/2011/04/Minervation-LIDA-instrument-v1-2.pdf. Accessed 2013 Jul 1.
13. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, LaraM, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001 May 23-30;285(20):2612-21.
14. Grewal P, Alagaratnam S. The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the internet. Int J Surg. 2013;11(5):410-3. Epub 2013 Mar 19.
15. Grewal P, Williams B, Alagaratnam S, Neffendorf J, Soobrah R. Quality of vascular surgery web sites on the Internet. J Vasc Surg. 2012 Nov;56(5):1461-7. Epub 2012 Jul 15.
16. Wong LM, Yan H, Margel D, Fleshner NE. Urologists in cyberspace: a review of the quality of health information from American urologists' websites using three validated tools. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013 Mar-Apr;7(3-4):100-7.
17. Soobrah R, Clark SK. Your patient information website: how good is it? Colorectal Dis. 2012 Mar;14(3):e90-4.
18. Goslin RA, Elhassan HA. Evaluating Internet health resources in ear, nose, and throat surgery. Laryngoscope. 2013 Jul;123(7):1626-31. Epub 2013 May 29.
19. Kirthi V, Modi BN. Coronary angioplasty and the Internet: what can patients searching online expect to find? J Interv Cardiol. 2012 Oct;25(5):476-81. Epub 2012 Jun 7.
20. San Noberto EM, Taylor J, Salvador R, Revilla A, Merino B, Vaquero C. The quality of information available on the Internet about aortic aneurysm and its endovascular treatment. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2011;64(10):869-75.
21. Tavare AN, Alsafi A, Hamady MS. Analysis of the quality of information obtained about uterine artery embolization from the Internet. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012 Dec;35(6):1355-62. Epub 2012 Jan 25.
22. Henry SL. W3C web accessibility initiative. Introduction to web accessibility. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php. Accessed 2013 Jul 1.
23. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Children. http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/menus/children.cfm. Accessed 2013 Jul 1.
24. Juicy Studio. Readability test. http://juicystudio.com/services/readability.php. Accessed 2013 Jul 1.
25. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948 Jun;32(3):221-33.
26. The Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America. Parents & patients. http://www.posna.org/parents/parents.cfm. Accessed 2013 Jul 1.
27. National Institutes of Health. How to write easy-to-read health materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. 2012. Accessed 2013 Jul 1.
28. Alsafi A, Kaya G, Patel H, Hamady MS. A comparison of the quality of the information available on the Internet on interventional radiology, vascular surgery, and cardiology. J Postgrad Med. 2013 Jan-Mar;59(1):69-75.
29. Muthukumarasamy S, Osmani Z, Sharpe A, England RJ. Quality of information available on the World Wide Web for patients undergoing thyroidectomy: review. J Laryngol Otol. 2012 Feb;126(2):116-9. Epub 2011 Aug 26.
30. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of Internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008 Oct;53(10):1310-5.