Perm J. 2021 May;25. doi: 10.7812/TPP/20.185.
Headache is experienced by more than half of the world population each year. In this study, we evaluate the content, quality, and health literacy required to understand online information for patients with headaches.
We selected 4 commonly used search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, and Ask.com) and searched using the term "headache." The 30 top hits on each site were selected for review. After exclusions, we examined the websites for completeness of content, readability, credibility, and quality.
A total of 28 websites were included. None of the websites met our criteria for completeness. Using 2 standard measures of readability, most websites required reading skills at the 10th-grade level or greater. Only 4 of the 28 websites were readable below the eighth-grade level. Only 3 websites fulfilled all 4 credibility criteria of authorship, currency, citations, and disclosure. Most websites did not list authorship, and only 17% reported disclosures of conflicts of interest. When assessing quality of treatment information using the DISCERN tool, scores ranged from 23 to 59, with a mean score of 41, which could be interpreted as "fair" quality.
We found variable content and quality in online headache websites for patients. Many of these websites failed to disclose information about authorship, conflicts of interest, and details on the prognosis or prevention of headaches. Readability, credibility, completeness, and quality of information were lacking in most websites.
每年有超过一半的世界人口经历头痛。在这项研究中，我们评估了患者在线获取头痛信息所需的内容、质量和健康素养。
我们选择了 4 个常用搜索引擎（Google、Yahoo、Bing 和 Ask.com），并使用“头痛”一词进行搜索。每个网站选取前 30 个搜索结果进行审查。排除重复后，我们检查了网站内容的完整性、可读性、可信度和质量。
共纳入 28 个网站。没有一个网站符合我们的完整性标准。使用 2 种标准的可读性测量方法，大多数网站需要 10 年级或更高的阅读技能。只有 4 个网站的可读性低于 8 年级。只有 3 个网站符合作者、时效性、引用和披露的 4 项可信度标准。大多数网站没有列出作者，只有 17%的网站报告了利益冲突的披露。使用 DISCERN 工具评估治疗信息的质量时，得分范围为 23 至 59，平均得分为 41，可解释为“中等”质量。
我们发现患者在线头痛网站的内容和质量存在差异。这些网站中有许多没有披露关于作者、利益冲突以及头痛预后或预防的信息。大多数网站的可读性、可信度、完整性和信息质量都存在不足。
