The quality and readability of online consumer information about gynecologic cancer

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 537-541

  Sobota, Aleksandra ^a   Ozakinci, Gozde ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision making; Gynecologic cancer; Online information; Quality of information; Readability; Treatment information; World wide web

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER THERAPY; COLLEGE; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; GYNECOLOGIC CANCER; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; READING; SCORING SYSTEM; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; GENITAL NEOPLASMS, FEMALE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; STANDARDS;

BENCHMARKING; COMPREHENSION; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; FEMALE; GENITAL NEOPLASMS, FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERNET;

EID: 84924348677     PISSN: 1048891X     EISSN: 15251438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000362     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:art. no.: CD001431.
2. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152:1423.
3. Mills ME, Sullivan K. The importance of information giving for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a review of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 1999;8:631-642.
4. James N, Daniels H, Rahman R, et al. A study of information seeking by cancer patients and their carers. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2007;19:356-362.
5. Pandey SK, Hart JJ, Tiwary S. Women's health and the internet: understanding emerging trends and implications. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:179-191.
6. Cotten SR, Gupta SS. Characteristics of online and offline health information seekers and factors that discriminate between them. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:1795-1806.
7. Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Saul J. Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:48-51.
8. Rutten LJ, Arora NK, Bakos AD, et al. Information needs and sources of information among cancer patients: a systematic review of research (1980-2003). Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57:250-261.
9. Holton S, Kirkman M, Rowe H, et al. The childbearing concerns and related information needs and preferences of women of reproductive age with a chronic, noncommunicable health condition: a systematic review. Womens Health Issues. 2012;22:e541-e552.
10. Howard-Anderson J, Ganz PA, Bower JE, et al. Quality of life, fertility concerns, and behavioral health outcomes in younger breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:386-405.
11. 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;277:1244-1245.
12. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:105-111.
13. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221-233.
14. Krishnamurthy S, Patel R, Kaushal A. Online competition. Market Res . 2005;17:20-25.
15. Ni Riordain R, McCreary C. Head and neck cancer information on the internet: type, accuracy and content. Oral Oncol. 2009;45:675-677.
16. DeCoster J. Testing group differences using t-tests, ANOVA, and non-parametric measures. 2006. Available at: http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html. Accessed June 23, 2014.
17. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
18. Lopez-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F. The quality of internet sites providing information relating to oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009;45:e95-e98.
19. Kincaid JP. Derivation of New Readability Formulas: (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Millington, TN: Chief of Naval Technical Training, Naval Air Station Memphis; 1975.
20. OECD. OECD Factbook 2013: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2013-en.
21. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and Web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav. 2006; 33:352-373.
22. Klare GR. The measurement of readability: useful information for communicators. ACM J Comput Doc. 2000;24:107-121.
23. Redish J. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM J Comput Doc. 2000;24:132-137.
24. Coulter A. Evidence based patient information. BMJ. 1998;317:225-226.
25. th HON survey on health and medical Internet use (July-August 2010). 2011. Available at: http://www.hon.ch/Global/pdf/2010-Internet-use-Analysis.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2014.
26. Cancer Research UK. Cancer incidence by age. 2014. Available at: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence/age/. Accessed July 22, 2014.