Evaluating the web as a source of information for patients with chest wall deformities: insights into engagement and disparities
link.springer.com shows its articles on its own site.
Read the article on link.springer.com ↗Article · Jun 2024 · 1 min read
In brief
In brief
This study evaluates the quality of online information available to patients seeking guidance on pectus excavatum and chest wall deformities. Using the EQIP instrument to assess 140 websites, researchers found significant variability in content quality with no site meeting all criteria, highlighting potential barriers to patient access of reliable information and subsequent impacts on care engagement and outcomes.
- No pectus excavatum patient education websites met all quality criteria, with scores ranging from 8-32/36 on the EQIP instrument.
- Hospital-affiliated websites (32.8%) were the most common source, yet even these failed to achieve perfect content quality scores.
- The internet is patients' primary information source, but variable quality may create disparities in referral and treatment engagement.
- Search engines return diverse, inconsistent resources that complicate patients' ability to find high-quality chest wall deformity information.
- Poor online information quality may negatively impact patient satisfaction and quality of life for those seeking pectus excavatum care.
Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.
Abstract
Background
Recent data highlight the internet’s pivotal role as the primary information source for patients. In this study, we emulate a patient’s/caregiver’s quest for online information concerning chest deformities and assess the quality of available information.
Methods
We conducted an internet search using combination of the terms “pectus excavatum,” “pectus excavatum surgery,” “funnel chest,” “pectus excavatum repair” and identified the first 100 relevant websites from the three most popular search engines: Google, Yahoo, and Bing. These websites were evaluated using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) instrument.
Results
Of the 300 websites generated, 140 (46.7%) were included in our evaluation after elimination of duplicates, non-English websites, and those targeting medical professionals. The EQIP scores in the final sample ranged from 8 to 32/36, with a median score of 22. Most of the evaluated websites (32.8%) originated from hospitals, yet none met all 36 EQIP criteria.
Discussion
None of the evaluated websites pertaining to pectus excavatum achieved a flawless “content quality” score. The diverse array of websites potentially complicates patients’ efforts to navigate toward high-quality resources. Barriers in accessing high-quality online patient information may contribute to disparities in referral, patient engagement, treatment satisfaction, and overall quality of life.
Level of evidence
IV.