A Systematic Review of Online Patient Resources to Support Shared Decision Making for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.
Journal
World journal of surgery
ISSN: 1432-2323
Titre abrégé: World J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704052
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
accepted:
16
05
2021
pubmed:
8
7
2021
medline:
17
8
2021
entrez:
7
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
RCS Eng, the Royal College of Surgeons of England, has published much information with regard to the consenting process. A majority of patients seek health information through online resources as well as discussing with the care givers. Therefore, it is necessary that online material is both of high quality and reliable for patients. We aimed to evaluate the quality and standard of the online patient information on laparoscopic cholecystectomy to help in the consenting process. A search was carried out as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Sources were assessed using five validated scoring tools: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (readability), DISCERN and IPDAS scores (quality of content) and HONcode and the Information Standard Certification (standards of accreditation). The average readability of all websites was higher than recommended for patient literature. Less than half of the sources had received HONcode or Information Standard accreditation. On grading of quality and content, across validated scoring tools, no source achieved the minimum recommended level. Online patient information related to laparoscopic cholecystectomy is of poor quality. We recommend a multidisciplinary approach to participate in publishing more readable online resources of a higher standard to help patients and clinicians in consent and shared decision making.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
RCS Eng, the Royal College of Surgeons of England, has published much information with regard to the consenting process. A majority of patients seek health information through online resources as well as discussing with the care givers. Therefore, it is necessary that online material is both of high quality and reliable for patients. We aimed to evaluate the quality and standard of the online patient information on laparoscopic cholecystectomy to help in the consenting process.
METHODS
A search was carried out as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Sources were assessed using five validated scoring tools: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (readability), DISCERN and IPDAS scores (quality of content) and HONcode and the Information Standard Certification (standards of accreditation).
RESULTS
The average readability of all websites was higher than recommended for patient literature. Less than half of the sources had received HONcode or Information Standard accreditation. On grading of quality and content, across validated scoring tools, no source achieved the minimum recommended level.
CONCLUSION
Online patient information related to laparoscopic cholecystectomy is of poor quality. We recommend a multidisciplinary approach to participate in publishing more readable online resources of a higher standard to help patients and clinicians in consent and shared decision making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34232356
doi: 10.1007/s00268-021-06189-y
pii: 10.1007/s00268-021-06189-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2719-2733Informations de copyright
© 2021. Crown.
Références
Shaffer EA (2006) Gallstone disease. Epidemiology of gallbladder stone disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 20(6):981–96
doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2006.05.004
Stinton LM, Shaffer EA (2012) Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver 6(2):172–187
doi: 10.5009/gnl.2012.6.2.172
Bakken IJ, Skjeldestad FE, Mjaland O, Johnson E (2004) Cholecystectomy in Norway 1990–2002. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 124(18):2376–2378
pubmed: 15467805
Aerts R, Penninckx F (2003) The burden of gallstone disease in Europe. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 18(Suppl 3):49–53
doi: 10.1046/j.0953-0673.2003.01721.x
Royal College of Surgeons (Eng.). Consent: supported decision-making–a good practice guide. (2016)
Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK et al (2015) Trust and sources of health information. Arch Intern Med 165:2618–2624
doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618
Connelly TM, Khan MS, Victory L, Mehmood A, Cooke F (2018) An assessment of the quality and content of information on diverticulitis on the internet. The Surgeon 16(6):359–364
doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2018.03.010
Cotugna N, Vickery CE, Carpenter-haefele KM (2005) Evaluation of the literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Commun Health 30(3):213–219
doi: 10.1007/s10900-004-1959-x
Musbahi A, Brown LR, Reddy A, Viswanath YK, Rao M, Gopinath BR (2019) Systematic review of online patient resources to support shared decision making for bariatric surgery. Int J Surg 74:34–38
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.12.021
Marshall JH, Baker DM, Lee MJ, Jones GL, Lobo AJ, Brown SR (2017) Assessing internet-based information used to aid patient decision- making about surgery for perianal Crohn’s fistula. Tech Coloproctol 21(6):461–469
doi: 10.1007/s10151-017-1648-2
Ipser JC, Dewing S, Hons B, Stein DJ (2007) A systematic review of the quality of information on the treatment of anxiety disorders on the internet. Curr Psychiatr Rep 9(4):303–309
doi: 10.1007/s11920-007-0037-3
Corcelles R, Daigle CR, Talamas HR, Brethauer SA, Schauer PR (2015) Assessment of the quality of internet information on sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis [Internet] 11(3):539–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.08.014
doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2014.08.014
Sehgal A, Scott FAM, Joshi HM, Gosselink MP (2016) Quality of patient information online for rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 20(5):333–335
doi: 10.1007/s10151-016-1434-6
Van Deursen AJAM (2011) Internet skill-related problems in accessing online health information. Int J Med Inform [Internet] 81(1):61–72
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.10.005