Section of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Department of General Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University Hospitals, Assiut, Egypt.
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 20;14(6):e0218342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218342. eCollection 2019.
Online health information, if evidence-based and unbiased, can improve patients' and caregivers' health knowledge and assist them in disease management and health care decision-making.
To identify standards for the development of health information resources on the internet for patients.
We searched in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for publications describing evaluation instruments for websites providing health information. Eligible instruments were identified by three independent reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus. Items reported were extracted and categorized into seven domains (accuracy, completeness and comprehensiveness, technical elements, design and aesthetics, usability, accessibility, and readability) that were previously thought to be a minimum requirement for websites.
One hundred eleven articles met inclusion criteria, reporting 92 evaluation instruments (1609 items). We found 74 unique items that we grouped into the seven domains. For the accuracy domain, one item evaluated information provided in concordance with current guidelines. For completeness and comprehensiveness, 18 items described the disease with respect to various topics such as etiology or therapy, among others. For technical elements, 27 items evaluated disclosure of authorship, sponsorship, affiliation, editorial process, feedback process, privacy, and data protection. For design and aesthetics, 10 items evaluated consistent layout and relevant graphics and images. For usability, 10 items evaluated ease of navigation and functionality of internal search engines. For accessibility, five items evaluated the availability of websites to people with audiovisual disabilities. For readability, three items evaluated conversational writing style and use of a readability tool to determine the reading level of the text.
We identified standards for the development of online patient health information. This proposed instrument can serve as a guideline to develop and improve how health information is presented on the internet.
如果在线健康信息是基于证据且没有偏见的,那么它可以提高患者和护理人员的健康知识,并帮助他们进行疾病管理和医疗决策。
为患者互联网健康信息资源的开发确定标准。
我们在 MEDLINE、CINAHL、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 中搜索描述用于提供健康信息的网站评估工具的出版物。由三名独立评审员确定合格工具,并通过共识解决分歧。提取并分类报告的项目,分为七个领域(准确性、完整性和全面性、技术要素、设计和美学、可用性、可及性和可读性),这些领域之前被认为是网站的最低要求。
111 篇文章符合纳入标准,报告了 92 种评估工具(1609 项)。我们发现了 74 个独特的项目,将其分为七个领域。在准确性领域,有一个项目评估了与当前指南一致的信息提供情况。在完整性和全面性方面,有 18 个项目描述了疾病在病因或治疗等各个方面的情况。在技术要素方面,有 27 个项目评估了作者、赞助、隶属关系、编辑过程、反馈过程、隐私和数据保护的披露情况。在设计和美学方面,有 10 个项目评估了一致的布局和相关图形和图像。在可用性方面,有 10 个项目评估了导航的易用性和内部搜索引擎的功能。在可及性方面,有 5 个项目评估了网站对视听障碍人士的可用性。在可读性方面,有 3 个项目评估了对话式写作风格和使用可读性工具来确定文本的阅读水平。
我们确定了开发在线患者健康信息的标准。该工具可作为制定和改进互联网健康信息呈现方式的指南。