Quality, readability, and understandability of internet-based information on cataract

Patient education information material assessment criteria: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient education information material (PEIM) is an essential component of patient education programs in increasing patients' ability to cope with their diseases. Therefore, it is essential to consider the criteria that will be used to prepare and evaluate these resources.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to identify these criteria and recognize the tools or methods used to evaluate them.

METHODS

National and international databases and indexing banks, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, Magiran, SID and ISC, were searched for this review. Original or review articles, theses, short surveys, and conference papers published between January 1990 and June 2022 were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 4688 documents were retrieved, of which 298 documents met the inclusion criteria. The criteria were grouped into 24 overarching criteria. The most frequently used criteria were readability, quality, suitability, comprehensibility and understandability.

CONCLUSION

This review has provided empirical evidence to identify criteria, tools, techniques or methods for developing or evaluating a PEIM. The authors suggest that developing a comprehensive tool based on these findings is critical for evaluating the overall efficiency of PEIM using effective criteria.

Assessing the quality of online information on glaucoma procedures

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the quality of information related to glaucoma procedures found online using 2 different assessment tools.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of 100 web sites found via Google search engine.

METHODS

The terms "peripheral iridotomy" and "trabeculectomy" along with synonymous keywords were inputted into Google's search engine. The first 50 functional websites for each term were assessed by 2 independent raters using the DISCERN instrument as well as a quality assessment tool by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Statistical analysis included an evaluation of intra-rater reproducibility and interclass correlation between the 2 scales.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(i) Quality of web site content based on DISCERN and JAMA scores, (ii) quality of web site based on categorization of web site (iii), intra-rater reproducibility of each scale, and (iv) interclass correlation between the 2 rating scales.

RESULTS

Only 22% of the web sites for peripheral iridotomy and 34% of the web sites for trabeculectomy met all the criteria for JAMA's quality assessment. The mean DISCERN scores for peripheral iridotomy and trabeculectomy were 44 and 43.7, respectively, indicating poor quality. For the DISCERN scale, level of agreement between raters for each question ranged from κ = 0.550 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.700-1.026) to κ = 0.884 (95% CI 0.751-1.017). For the JAMA 4 scale, level of agreement for each question ranged from κ = 0.874 (95% CI 0.734-1.01) to κ = 1.00.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that information found online for two common ophthalmic procedures is of variable and poor quality. Thus, patients may be receiving misinformation online and better measures need to be implemented to avoid the dissemination of low-quality health information.