An Observational Evaluation of Primary Care Online Resources

P. Millares Martin, Jorge Millares-Bobet
{"title":"An Observational Evaluation of Primary Care Online Resources","authors":"P. Millares Martin, Jorge Millares-Bobet","doi":"10.33590/emj/10305829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: General practice websites are getting more relevant as more interaction with patients is occurring digitally; however, there are no regulations governing them, nor much research about their benefit or quality.\n\nObjectives: To understand the online presence of general practices through time, using a tool developed for this purpose and assessing practices’ websites at two separate times.\n\nMethods: A form was developed to assess websites on base of their performance against 17 parameters, including information about the practice (logo, interactive address, area covered, telephone, opening times, details about staff, and quality rate), website parameters (number of pages and links on the site, level of link errors, loading speed, and search engine), and online services provided (social media, interactions like messaging, booking appointments, ordering prescriptions, accessing medical records, and allowing video consultations). Possible scores ranged from 17–66 points, with two to four points per factor analysed. A lower score was a mark of quality.\n\nResults: Practices were scored twice over the last 5 years; however, the sample average, although improving from 36.5 to 31.6, still puts practices websites midway in the quality range of the tool used. Looking at individual parameters, the homepage’s average loading time deteriorated, as well as maps showing the practice location. However, other details improved.\n\nConclusions: Websites are taking a more relevant role in healthcare interactions, but their quality has improved little in the last 5 years. There is a need for stricter regulations if the digital presence of primary care is expected to play a safe role in primary care provision.","PeriodicalId":90162,"journal":{"name":"European medical Journal. Urology","volume":"103 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European medical Journal. Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33590/emj/10305829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: General practice websites are getting more relevant as more interaction with patients is occurring digitally; however, there are no regulations governing them, nor much research about their benefit or quality. Objectives: To understand the online presence of general practices through time, using a tool developed for this purpose and assessing practices’ websites at two separate times. Methods: A form was developed to assess websites on base of their performance against 17 parameters, including information about the practice (logo, interactive address, area covered, telephone, opening times, details about staff, and quality rate), website parameters (number of pages and links on the site, level of link errors, loading speed, and search engine), and online services provided (social media, interactions like messaging, booking appointments, ordering prescriptions, accessing medical records, and allowing video consultations). Possible scores ranged from 17–66 points, with two to four points per factor analysed. A lower score was a mark of quality. Results: Practices were scored twice over the last 5 years; however, the sample average, although improving from 36.5 to 31.6, still puts practices websites midway in the quality range of the tool used. Looking at individual parameters, the homepage’s average loading time deteriorated, as well as maps showing the practice location. However, other details improved. Conclusions: Websites are taking a more relevant role in healthcare interactions, but their quality has improved little in the last 5 years. There is a need for stricter regulations if the digital presence of primary care is expected to play a safe role in primary care provision.
初级保健在线资源的观察性评价
背景:随着与患者的互动越来越多,全科医生网站变得越来越相关;然而,目前并没有相关法规来管理它们,也没有太多关于它们的益处或质量的研究。目的:通过使用为此目的开发的工具并在两个不同的时间评估实践网站,了解随时间推移的一般实践在线存在。方法:开发了一个表格,根据17个参数对网站的表现进行评估,这些参数包括有关实践的信息(标识、互动地址、覆盖区域、电话、开放时间、员工详细信息和质量)、网站参数(网站上的页面和链接数量、链接错误程度、加载速度和搜索引擎)以及提供的在线服务(社交媒体、消息传递等互动、预约、订购处方、访问医疗记录,并允许视频咨询)。可能的得分范围在17-66分之间,每个因素分析2到4分。较低的分数是质量的标志。结果:实践在近5年内进行了两次评分;然而,样本平均值虽然从36.5提高到31.6,但仍然使实践网站处于所使用工具质量范围的中间位置。从个别参数来看,主页的平均加载时间恶化了,显示练习地点的地图也是如此。不过,其他细节有所改善。结论:网站在医疗互动中发挥着越来越重要的作用,但在过去的5年里,网站的质量几乎没有提高。如果期望初级保健的数字化存在在初级保健提供中发挥安全作用,则需要制定更严格的法规。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信