Quality assessment of online patient information on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool

被引:2
|
作者
Chien, S. [1 ,2 ]
Miller, G. H. L. [1 ]
Huang, I [1 ]
Cunningham, D. A. [1 ]
Carson, D. [1 ]
Gall, L. S. [1 ]
Khan, K. S. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, Scotland
[2] Univ Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
[3] NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Scotland
关键词
Endoscopy; Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy; Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool; Patient information; HEALTH INFORMATION; INTERNET; INSTRUMENT; CONSENT;
D O I
10.1308/rcsann.2022.0078
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction Websites and online resources are increasingly becoming patients' main source of healthcare information. It is paramount that high quality information is available online to enhance patient education and improve clinical outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy is the gold standard investigation for UGI symptoms and yet little is known regarding the quality of patient orientated websites. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online patient information on UGI endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool. Methods Ten search terms were employed to conduct a systematic review. for each term, the top 100 websites identified via a Google search were assessed using the modified EQIP tool. High scoring websites underwent further analysis. Websites intended for professional use by clinicians as well as those containing video or marketing content were excluded. Findings A total of 378 websites were eligible for analysis. The median modified EQIP score for UGI endoscopy was 18/36 (interquartile range: 14-21). The median EQIP scores for the content, identification and structure domains were 8/18, 1/6 and 9/12 respectively. Higher modified EQIP scores were obtained for websites produced by government departments and National Health Service hospitals (p=0.007). Complication rates were documented in only a fifth (20.4%) of websites. High scoring websites were significantly more likely to provide balanced information on risks and benefits (94.6% vs 34.4%, p<0.001). Conclusions There is an immediate need to improve the quality of online patient information regarding UGI endoscopy. The currently available resources provide minimal information on the risks associated with the procedure, potentially hindering patients' ability to make informed healthcare decisions.
引用
收藏
页码:672 / 681
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Development and validation of a quality assessment tool to assess online nutrition information
    Ellis, Cassandra H.
    Moore, J. Bernadette
    Ho, Peter
    Evans, Charlotte E. L.
    DIGITAL HEALTH, 2023, 9
  • [22] Assessment of the quality of online patient information resources for patients considering parastomal hernia treatment
    Blackwell, Sue
    Clifford, Scott
    Pinkney, Thomas
    Thompson, Dean
    Mathers, Jonathan
    COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2024, 26 (05) : 1014 - 1027
  • [23] Quality Assessment of Online Information on Body Contouring Surgery in Postbariatric Patient
    Lo Torto, Federico
    Marcasciano, Marco
    Frattaroli, Jacopo M.
    Kaciulyte, Juste
    Mori, Francesco L. R.
    Redi, Ugo
    Casella, Donato
    Cigna, Emanuele
    Ribuffo, Diego
    AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2020, 44 (03) : 839 - 846
  • [24] Commentary on: Quality Assessment of Online Patient Information for Cosmetic Botulinum Toxin
    Nassab, Reza
    AESTHETIC SURGERY JOURNAL, 2020, 40 (11) : NP643 - NP644
  • [25] Quality Assessment of Online Information on Body Contouring Surgery in Postbariatric Patient
    Federico Lo Torto
    Marco Marcasciano
    Jacopo M. Frattaroli
    Juste Kaciulyte
    Francesco L. R. Mori
    Ugo Redi
    Donato Casella
    Emanuele Cigna
    Diego Ribuffo
    Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2020, 44 : 839 - 846
  • [26] Quality of patient information online for rectal prolapse
    Sehgal, A.
    Scott, F. A. M.
    Joshi, H. M.
    Gosselink, M. P.
    TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2016, 20 (05) : 333 - 335
  • [27] Quality of patient information online for rectal prolapse
    A. Sehgal
    F. A. M. Scott
    H. M. Joshi
    M. P. Gosselink
    Techniques in Coloproctology, 2016, 20 : 333 - 335
  • [28] Consensus on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy quality indicators; a modified Delphi process
    Kamran, Umair
    Gronlund, Toto
    Brookes, Matthew
    Rutter, Matt
    McCord, Mimi
    Adderley, Nicola
    Trudgill, Nigel
    GUT, 2023, 72 (SUPPL_2) : A21 - A21
  • [29] QUALITY OF UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY REPORTING IN SUSPECTED CANCER PATIENTS
    Measuria, H.
    Greer, S.
    Bhalme, M.
    GUT, 2016, 65 : A61 - A61
  • [30] 'Quality signposting': the role of online information prescription in providing patient information
    Brewster, Liz
    Sen, Barbara
    HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, 2011, 28 (01): : 59 - 67