Smart J M, Burling D
Department of Clinical Radiology, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
Clin Radiol. 2001 Nov;56(11):867-70. doi: 10.1053/crad.2001.0738.
To determine whether the internet is a useful resource for patients seeking information on radiological procedures.
A systematic search of the world wide web was performed by means of four general search engines (AltaVista, Yahoo!, Infoseek and Excite). Twenty-eight suitable patient-directed websites on arteriography were identified for analysis. The value of this material was measured by establishing inclusion or exclusion of a number of factors relating to the procedure. Readability of the materials was evaluated using the Flesch reading ease score.
Advice on preparation was included in 21 (75%) sites. Contraindications were found in 16 (57%) sites, risks in 6 (21%) and aftercare in 25 (89%). Result availability was discussed in 15 (54%) sites, with links to other radiology sites in 13 (46%). Visual aids were used in 6 (21%) sites and a contact address found in 27 (96%). Mean Flesch reading ease score was 57, with 46% of sites below the preferred minimum of 60.
Few sites provide the range of information a patient needs before arriving for a procedure. In addition, the readability of the material on these sites is frequently set at a level incomprehensible to patients with lower levels of literacy.
确定互联网对于寻求放射学检查相关信息的患者是否是一个有用的资源。
通过四个通用搜索引擎(阿尔塔维斯塔、雅虎、信息 seek 和 Excite)对万维网进行系统搜索。识别出 28 个适合患者的关于血管造影的网站进行分析。通过确定与该检查相关的一些因素的纳入或排除来衡量这些材料的价值。使用弗莱什易读性分数评估材料的可读性。
21 个(75%)网站包含了关于准备工作的建议。16 个(57%)网站提到了禁忌症,6 个(21%)提到了风险,25 个(89%)提到了术后护理。15 个(54%)网站讨论了结果的可得性,13 个(46%)有指向其他放射学网站的链接。6 个(21%)网站使用了视觉辅助工具,27 个(96%)网站找到了联系地址。平均弗莱什易读性分数为 57,46%的网站低于首选的最低分数 60。
很少有网站能提供患者在进行检查前所需的全部信息。此外,这些网站上材料的可读性常常设定在识字水平较低的患者难以理解的程度。