Assessment of the quality of patient-orientated internet information on surgery for ulcerative colitis

Colorectal Disease

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 511-514

  Sacchi, M ^a   Yeung, T M ^b,c   Spinelli, A ^a,d   Mortensen, N J ^b,c  

^a HUMANITAS CLINICAL AND RESEARCH CENTER   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c OXFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

Internet; Surgery; Ulcerative colitis; Web

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERNET INFORMATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT RISK; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SEARCH ENGINE; SURGICAL RISK; ULCERATIVE COLITIS; WEB BROWSER; ADULT; CHILD; COLITIS, ULCERATIVE; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; CHILD; COLITIS, ULCERATIVE; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; HEALTH COMMUNICATION; HUMANS; INTERNET;

EID: 84929662756     PISSN: 14628910     EISSN: 14631318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/codi.12870     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Ellis MC, Diggs BS, Vetto JT, Herzig DO. Trends in the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis over time: increased mortality and centralization of care. World J Surg 2011; 35: 671-6.
2. van der Marel S, Duijvestein M, Hardwick JC et al. Quality of web-based information on inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009; 15: 1891-6.
3. Shea-Budgell MA, Kostaras X, Myhill KP, Hagen NA. Information needs and sources of information for patients during cancer follow-up. Curr Oncol 2014; 21: 165-73.
4. Yeung TM, Mortensen NJ. Assessment of the quality of patient-orientated internet information on surgery for diverticular disease. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55: 85-9.
5. Yeung TM, D'Souza ND. Quality analysis of patient information on surgical treatment of haemorrhoids on the internet. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2013; 95: 341-4.
6. Neuman HB, Cabral C, Charlson ME, Temple LK. Is internet information adequate to facilitate surgical decision-making in familial adenomatous polyposis? Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50: 2135-41.
7. http://www.google.com. Mountain View, CA: web search engine.
8. http://www.yahoo.com. Sunnyvale, CA: web search engine.
9. Kaicker J, Debono VB, Dang W, Buckley N, Thabane L. Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument. BMC Med 2010; 8: 59.
10. Langille M, Bernard A, Rodgers C, Hughes S, Leddin D, van Zanten SV. Systematic review of the quality of patient information on the internet regarding inflammatory bowel disease treatments. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 322-8.
11. Tsuya A, Sugawara Y, Tanaka A, Narimatsu H. Do cancer patients tweet? Examining the twitter use of cancer patients in Japan. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16: e137.
12. McGregor F, Somner JE, Bourne RR, Munn-Giddings C, Shah P, Cross V. Social media use by patients with glaucoma: what can we learn? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2014; 34: 46-52.
13. Kofinas JD, Varrey A, Sapra KJ, Kanj RV, Chervenak FA, Asfaw T. Adjunctive social media for more effective contraceptive counseling: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 763-70.
14. O'Neill S, Brady RR. Colorectal smartphone apps: opportunities and risks. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: e530-4.
15. Pereira JL, Koski S, Hanson J, Bruera ED, Mackey JR. Internet usage among women with breast cancer: an exploratory study. Clin Breast Cancer 2000;1:148-53; discussion 54-5.
16. Provost M, Perri M, Baujard V, Boyer C. Opinions and e-health behaviours of patients and health professionals in the USA. and Europe. Stud Health Technol Inform 2003; 95: 695-700.