背景:随着患者越来越多地利用互联网获取与健康相关的信息,信息的准确性和可用性至关重要,特别是对于寻求治疗相对常见的骨科儿童疾病的患者和父母,例如Legg-Calvé-Perthes(LCP)疾病。因此,本研究的目的是评估有关LCP疾病的在线健康信息.这项研究特别旨在(1)检查可访问性,可用性,可靠性,和在线信息的可读性,(2)比较不同来源网站的质量,以及(3)确定网络基础代码(HON-code)认证是否保证更高的信息质量。
方法:使用Minervalidation工具(LIDA)对来自Google和Bing查询的网站进行了编译和评分,一种量化网站质量的评估工具,以及Flesch-Kinkaid(FK)分析,评估内容可读性的指标。所有网站都是根据来源类别[学术,私人医生/医生团体,政府/非营利组织(NPO),商业,和未指定]和HON代码认证。
结果:基于医生和政府/非营利组织的网站具有最高的可访问性,未指定的站点组是最可靠和可用的,而以医生为基础的小组被发现需要最少的教育才能理解。未指定地点的可靠性评分明显高于医师地点(p=0.0164)和学术地点(p<0.0001)。与未经认证的网站相比,经过HON代码认证的网站在质量领域的得分更高,并且更易于阅读,具有显著更高的可靠性评分(p<0.0001)。
结论:作为一个整体,互联网上有关LCP疾病的信息质量较差。然而,我们的研究结果还鼓励患者利用HON代码认证的网站,因为这些网站的可靠性显著提高.未来的研究应该分析改进这些公开信息的方法。此外,未来的分析应该检查患者更好地识别可靠网站的方法,以及优化患者访问和理解的最佳媒介。
BACKGROUND: As patients increasingly utilize the Internet to obtain health-related information, the accuracy and usability of information prove critical, especially for patients and parents seeking care for relatively common orthopedic childhood disorders such as Legg-Calvé-Perthes (LCP) disease. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate available online health information regarding LCP disease. The study specifically seeks to (1) examine the accessibility, usability, reliability, and readability of online information, (2) compare the quality of sites from different sources, and (3) determine whether Health on the Net Foundation Code (HON-code) certification guarantees higher quality of information.
METHODS: Websites from a query of both Google and Bing were compiled and scored using the Minervalidation tool (LIDA), an appraisal tool quantifying website quality, along with the Flesch-Kinkaid (FK) analysis, a metric assessing readability of content. All sites were organized based on source category [academic, private physician/physician group, governmental/non-profit organization (NPO), commercial, and unspecified] and HON-code certification.
RESULTS: Physician-based and governmental/NPO sites had the highest accessibility, the unspecified site group were the most reliable and usable, and the physician-based group was found to require the least education to comprehend. Unspecified sites had a significantly higher rating of reliability than physician sites (p = 0.0164) and academic sites (p < 0.0001). HON-code-certified sites were found to have greater scores across quality domains along with being easier to read compared to sites without certification, with significantly higher reliability scoring (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: As a whole, information on the Internet regarding LCP disease is of poor quality. However, our findings also encourage patients to utilize HON-code-certified websites due to their significantly higher reliability. Future studies should analyze methods of improving this publicly available information. Additionally, future analyses should examine methods for patients to better identify reliable websites, as well as the best mediums for optimized patient access and comprehension.