The quality, suitability, content and readability of online health-related information regarding sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery.
Journal
Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland
ISSN: 1463-1318
Titre abrégé: Colorectal Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883611
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
01
10
2020
revised:
06
12
2020
accepted:
28
12
2020
pubmed:
7
1
2021
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
6
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients are not well informed about sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery and often turn to the Internet for information. The purpose of this study was to assess online information for patients on sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. An online search of Google, Yahoo and Bing was performed using specific (e.g., rectal cancer surgery and vaginal pain) and general (e.g., rectal cancer surgery and sex) search terms. Inclusion criteria were websites in English, designed for patients, and including content regarding sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. Websites were assessed for readability (nine standardized tests), quality (DISCERN tool), suitability (Suitability Assessment of Materials tool), and content. Of 5040 websites identified, 99 unique websites met inclusion criteria. Three (3%) websites fulfilled the American Medical Association recommendation of a 6th-grade reading level. Using the DISCERN instrument, two (2%) websites were assigned good/excellent quality, nineteen (19%) referenced their sources of information, and thirty-one (31%) fully discussed the impact of sexual dysfunction on quality of life. Using the SAM instrument, three (3%) websites were classified as highly suitable for rectal cancer patients, sixty-five (66%) were adequate, and thirty-one (31%) were inadequate. With regards to content, nine (9%) websites fully discussed the impact of sexual dysfunction on patients partners and fifty-one (52%) websites did not cover prognosis. Online health information available to patients on sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery is suboptimal. Websites are not suitable, lack important content, and are written at too complex a reading level for patients.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
376-383Informations de copyright
© 2021 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.
Références
Cancer.org. Survival Rates for Colorectal Cancer. 2019. https://www.Cancer.org.cancer/colon-rectal-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html. Accessed 26 October 2019.
Arnold M, Rutherford MJ, Bardot A, Ferlay J, Andersson TM-L, Myklebust TÅ, et al. Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(11):1493-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30456-5
Pietrangeli A, Pugliese P, Perrone M, Sperduti I, Cosimelli M, Jandolo B. Sexual dysfunction following surgery for rectal cancer - a clinical and neurophysiological study. J Exp Clin Canc Res. 2009;28(1):128-132. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-28-128
Averyt JC, Nishimoto PW. Addressing sexual dysfunction in colorectal cancer survivorship care. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;5(5):388-94. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2014.059
Celentano V, Cohen R, Warusavitarne J, Faiz O, Chand M. Sexual dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(11):1523-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2826-4
Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJ. Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(9):859-60. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc0909595
Tonsaker T, Bartlet G, Trpkov C. Health information of the Internet Gold mine or minefield? Coll Fam Physicians Can. 2014;60(5):407-8.PMID: 24828994.
Garfinkle R, Wong-Chong N, Petrucci A, Sylla P, Wexner S, Bhatnagar S, et al. Assessing the readability, quality and accuracy of online health information for patients with low anterior resection syndrome following surgery for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2019;21(5):523-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14548
Eysenbach G, Kohler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. Br Med J. 2002;324:573-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573
Discern.org.uk. DISCERN - the DISCERN Instrument. 2020. http://www.discern.org.uk/discern_instrument.php. Accessed 28 September 2020.
Readability Studio. OrlanderSoftware. 2019. https://www.oleandersolutions.com/readabilitystudio.html. Accessed 15 July 2019.
Aspiruslibrary.org. Suitability Assessment of Materials for evaluation of health-related information for adults. 2019. http://aspiruslibrary.org/literacy/SAM.pdf. Accessed 26 October 2019.
McGraw K, Wong S. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 2020;1(1):30-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30
Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420-8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
Liljequist D, Elfving B, Skavberg RK. Intraclass correlation - a discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219854
Cicchetti D. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
Koo T, Li M. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Gamer M, Lemon J, Fellows I, Singh P. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement. R Package version 0.84.1
Bureau U. Educational Attainment in the United States: 2018. 2019. [online] Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/education-attainment/cpsdetailed-tables.html. Accessed 3 September 2019.
Wittmann D, Carolan M, Given B, Skolarus T, An L, Palapattu G, et al. Exploring the role of the partner in couples’ sexual recovery after surgery for prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(9):2509-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2244-x
McCabe M, Sharlip I, Lewis R, Atalla E, Balon R, Fisher A, et al. Risk factors for sexual dysfunction among women and men: a consensus statement from the Fourth International Consultation on Sexual Medicine 2015. J Sexual Med. 2016;13(2):153-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.015
Lewis R, Fugl-Meyer K, Bosch R, Fugl-Meyer A, Laumann E, Lizza E, et al. Epidemiology/risk factors of sexual dysfunction. J Sexual Med. 2004;1(1):35-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2004.10106.x
Vargas C, Chuang D, Ganor O, Lee B. Readability of online patient resources for the operative treatment of breast cancer. Surgery. 2014;156(2):311-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.03.004
Monton O, Lambert S, Belzile E, Mohr-Elzeki D. An evaluation of the suitability, readability, quality, and usefulness of online resources for family caregivers of patients with cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(10):1892-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.010
Stabile C, Goldfarb S, Baser R, Goldfrank D, Abu-Rustum N, Barakat R, et al. Sexual health needs and educational intervention preferences for women with cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(1):77-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4305-6
Pang J, Jones Z, Myers O, Popek S. Long term sexual function following rectal cancer treatment. Am J Surg. 2020;220(5):1258-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.06.064