S Chien, Ghl Miller, I Huang, D A Cunningham, D Carson, L S Gall, K S Khan
{"title":"使用修改后的 \"确保患者信息质量 \"工具对上消化道内窥镜检查的在线患者信息进行质量评估。","authors":"S Chien, Ghl Miller, I Huang, D A Cunningham, D Carson, L S Gall, K S Khan","doi":"10.1308/rcsann.2022.0078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Websites and online resources are increasingly becoming patients' main source of healthcare information. It is paramount that high quality information is available online to enhance patient education and improve clinical outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy is the gold standard investigation for UGI symptoms and yet little is known regarding the quality of patient orientated websites. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online patient information on UGI endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten search terms were employed to conduct a systematic review. for each term, the top 100 websites identified via a Google search were assessed using the modified EQIP tool. High scoring websites underwent further analysis. Websites intended for professional use by clinicians as well as those containing video or marketing content were excluded.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 378 websites were eligible for analysis. The median modified EQIP score for UGI endoscopy was 18/36 (interquartile range: 14-21). The median EQIP scores for the content, identification and structure domains were 8/18, 1/6 and 9/12 respectively. Higher modified EQIP scores were obtained for websites produced by government departments and National Health Service hospitals (<i>p</i>=0.007). Complication rates were documented in only a fifth (20.4%) of websites. High scoring websites were significantly more likely to provide balanced information on risks and benefits (94.6% vs 34.4%, <i>p</i><0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is an immediate need to improve the quality of online patient information regarding UGI endoscopy. The currently available resources provide minimal information on the risks associated with the procedure, potentially hindering patients' ability to make informed healthcare decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8088,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528370/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality assessment of online patient information on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.\",\"authors\":\"S Chien, Ghl Miller, I Huang, D A Cunningham, D Carson, L S Gall, K S Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1308/rcsann.2022.0078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Websites and online resources are increasingly becoming patients' main source of healthcare information. It is paramount that high quality information is available online to enhance patient education and improve clinical outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy is the gold standard investigation for UGI symptoms and yet little is known regarding the quality of patient orientated websites. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online patient information on UGI endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten search terms were employed to conduct a systematic review. for each term, the top 100 websites identified via a Google search were assessed using the modified EQIP tool. High scoring websites underwent further analysis. Websites intended for professional use by clinicians as well as those containing video or marketing content were excluded.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>A total of 378 websites were eligible for analysis. The median modified EQIP score for UGI endoscopy was 18/36 (interquartile range: 14-21). The median EQIP scores for the content, identification and structure domains were 8/18, 1/6 and 9/12 respectively. Higher modified EQIP scores were obtained for websites produced by government departments and National Health Service hospitals (<i>p</i>=0.007). Complication rates were documented in only a fifth (20.4%) of websites. High scoring websites were significantly more likely to provide balanced information on risks and benefits (94.6% vs 34.4%, <i>p</i><0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is an immediate need to improve the quality of online patient information regarding UGI endoscopy. The currently available resources provide minimal information on the risks associated with the procedure, potentially hindering patients' ability to make informed healthcare decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528370/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2022.0078\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2022.0078","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Quality assessment of online patient information on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.
Introduction: Websites and online resources are increasingly becoming patients' main source of healthcare information. It is paramount that high quality information is available online to enhance patient education and improve clinical outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy is the gold standard investigation for UGI symptoms and yet little is known regarding the quality of patient orientated websites. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online patient information on UGI endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool.
Methods: Ten search terms were employed to conduct a systematic review. for each term, the top 100 websites identified via a Google search were assessed using the modified EQIP tool. High scoring websites underwent further analysis. Websites intended for professional use by clinicians as well as those containing video or marketing content were excluded.
Findings: A total of 378 websites were eligible for analysis. The median modified EQIP score for UGI endoscopy was 18/36 (interquartile range: 14-21). The median EQIP scores for the content, identification and structure domains were 8/18, 1/6 and 9/12 respectively. Higher modified EQIP scores were obtained for websites produced by government departments and National Health Service hospitals (p=0.007). Complication rates were documented in only a fifth (20.4%) of websites. High scoring websites were significantly more likely to provide balanced information on risks and benefits (94.6% vs 34.4%, p<0.001).
Conclusions: There is an immediate need to improve the quality of online patient information regarding UGI endoscopy. The currently available resources provide minimal information on the risks associated with the procedure, potentially hindering patients' ability to make informed healthcare decisions.
期刊介绍:
The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England is the official scholarly research journal of the Royal College of Surgeons and is published eight times a year in January, February, March, April, May, July, September and November.
The main aim of the journal is to publish high-quality, peer-reviewed papers that relate to all branches of surgery. The Annals also includes letters and comments, a regular technical section, controversial topics, CORESS feedback and book reviews. The editorial board is composed of experts from all the surgical specialties.