Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
World Journal of Surgery
Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery 12/2018

03.07.2018 | Original Scientific Report

What Patients Look for When Browsing Online for Pancreatic Cancer: The Bait Behind the Byte

verfasst von: Alessandra Storino, Camila Guetter, Manuel Castillo-Angeles, Ammara A. Watkins, Joseph D. Mancias, Andrea Bullock, A. James Moser, Tara S. Kent

Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery | Ausgabe 12/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Suitability is a patient-centered metric defined as how appropriately health information is targeted to specific populations to increase knowledge. However, suitability is most commonly evaluated exclusively by healthcare professionals without collaboration from intended audiences. Suitability (as rated by intended audiences), accuracy and readability have not been evaluated on websites discussing pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Ten healthy volunteers evaluated fifty pancreatic cancer websites using the suitability assessment of materials (SAM instrument) for the materials’ overall suitability. Readability and accuracy were correlated.

Results

Ten recruited volunteers (ages 23–63, 50% female) found websites to be on average “adequate” or “superior” in suitability. Surgery, radiotherapy and nonprofit websites had higher suitability scores as compared to counterparts (p ≤ 0.03). There was no correlation between readability and accuracy levels and suitability scores (p ≥ 0.3). Presence of visual aids was associated with better suitability scores after controlling for website quality (p ≤ 0.01).

Conclusion

Suitability of websites discussing pancreatic cancer treatments as rated by lay audiences differed based on therapy type and website affiliation, and was independent of readability level and accuracy of information. Nonprofit affiliation websites focusing on surgery or radiotherapy were most suitable. Online information should be assessed for suitability by target populations, in addition to readability level and accuracy, to ensure information reaches the intended audience.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Glossar
Accuracy
The degree of concordance of the information provided with the best available evidence as evaluated by an expert panel. Scored as follows [8]: “1” for ≤ 25% of information was accurate, “2” for 26–50% of information was accurate, “3” for 51–75% of information was accurate, “4” for 76–99% of information was accurate and “5” for 100% of information was accurate.
Health literacy
The ability to read, understand and act on healthcare information includes the ability to comprehend prescription labels, insurance forms and other health-related information.
Patient education material (PEM)
Information presented with the intended goal of educating patients.
Readability
The number of years of education required to comprehend written information computed using five standardized tests: Coleman–Liau index, Flesch–Kincaid grade level, Gunning fog index, Gobbledygook readability formula and automated readability index.
Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine, revised (REALM-R)
An 8-item instrument designed to rapidly screen patients for potential health literacy problems. Patients scoring 6 or less are considered at risk of low health literacy.
Suitability
The appropriateness of educational materials to the need of the intended audience. In other words, how likely patients are to choose, read, understand and act on the information provided.
Suitability assessment of materials (SAM)
Standardized measure of suitability that considers six sections: content, literacy demand, graphics, layout and type, learning stimulation and motivation, and cultural appropriateness. SAM score is a percentage obtained by dividing the sum of ratings by total possible score. Websites scoring 0–39% were not suitable; 40–69% were adequate; and 70–100% were superior.
Literatur
1.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:7–30CrossRef
2.
Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Ko CY et al (2007) National failure to operate on early stage pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 246:173–180CrossRef
3.
Bilimoria KY, Ko CY, Tomlinson JS et al (2011) Wait times for cancer surgery in the United States: trends and predictors of delays. Ann Surg 253:779–785CrossRef
4.
Bass SB, Ruzek SB, Gordon TF et al (2006) Relationship of Internet health information use with patient behavior and self-efficacy: experiences of newly diagnosed cancer patients who contact the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Information Service. J Health Commun 11:219–236CrossRef
5.
Tian C, Champlin S, Mackert M et al (2014) Readability, suitability, and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening. Gastrointest Endosc 80:284–290CrossRef
6.
Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C (2006) The health literacy of america’s adults: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy (NCES 2006–483). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education, Washington, DC
7.
Cutilli CC (2009) Bennett IM Understanding the health literacy of America: results of the national assessment of adult literacy. Orthopedic Nursing 28:27–32CrossRef
8.
Storino A, Castillo-Angeles M, Watkins AA et al (2016) Assessing the accuracy and readability of online health information for patients with pancreatic cancer. JAMA Surg 151:831–837CrossRef
9.
Eysenbach G (2003) The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 53:356–371CrossRef
10.
Risoldi Cochrane Z, Gregory P, Wilson A (2012) Readability of consumer health information on the internet: a comparison of U.S. government-funded and commercially funded websites. J Health Commun 17:1003–1010CrossRef
11.
Bass PF 3rd, Wilson JF, Griffith CH (2003) A shortened instrument for literacy screening. J Gen Intern Med 18:1036–1038CrossRef
12.
Mumford ME (1997) A descriptive study of the readability of patient information leaflets designed by nurses. J Adv Nurs 26:985–991CrossRef
13.
Patel SK, Gordon EJ, Wong CA et al (2015) Readability content, and quality assessment of web-based patient education materials addressing neuraxial labor analgesia. Anesth Analg 121:1295–1300CrossRef
14.
15.
Weintraub D, Maliski SL, Fink A et al (2004) Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Educ Couns 55:275–280CrossRef
16.
Finnie RKC, Felder TM, Linder SK et al (2010) Beyond Reading Level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and web-based materials. J Cancer Educ 25:497–505CrossRef
17.
Doak CCDL, Root JH (1996) Teaching patients with low literacy skills, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, Lippincott
18.
Hibbard JH, Peters E, Dixon A et al (2007) Consumer competencies and the use of comparative quality information: it isn’t just about literacy. Med Care Res Rev 64:379–394CrossRef
19.
Manfredi C, Czaja R, Price J et al (1993) Cancer patients’ search for information. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 14:93–104
20.
S F Health topics: 80% of internet users look for health information online. Pew Internet & American Life Project Web site
21.
Kaphingst KA, Zanfini CJ, Emmons KM (2006) Accessibility of web sites containing colorectal cancer information to adults with limited literacy (United States). Cancer Causes Control 17:147–151CrossRef
22.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OoDPaHP Health Literacy Online: a guide to simplifying the user experience 2015
23.
Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG et al (2006) The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns 61:173–190CrossRef
24.
25.
Baker DW, DeWalt DA, Schillinger D et al (2011) “Teach to goal”: theory and design principles of an intervention to improve heart failure self-management skills of patients with low health literacy. J Health Commun 16(Suppl 3):73–88CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
What Patients Look for When Browsing Online for Pancreatic Cancer: The Bait Behind the Byte
verfasst von
Alessandra Storino
Camila Guetter
Manuel Castillo-Angeles
Ammara A. Watkins
Joseph D. Mancias
Andrea Bullock
A. James Moser
Tara S. Kent
Publikationsdatum
03.07.2018
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
World Journal of Surgery / Ausgabe 12/2018
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4719-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2018

World Journal of Surgery 12/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Original Scientific Report

Recurrent Falls Among Elderly Patients and the Impact of Anticoagulation Therapy

Original Scientific Report

First Do No Harm: Predicting Surgical Morbidity During Humanitarian Medical Missions

Invited Commentary

Invited Commentary to Static Prognostic Factors and Appropriate Surgical Designs of Patients with MTC: The 2nd Report of a Single-Institution Study in Japan

Original Scientific Report

Proposal for a Safe and Functional Pancreaticojejunostomy Technique from a Histopathological Perspective

Original Scientific Report

The Use of Three-Dimensional Printing Model in the Training of Choledochoscopy Techniques

Original Scientific Report

Liver Regeneration is Preserved After At Least Four Repeated Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

17.04.2024 | Postoperative nausea and vomiting | Nachrichten

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

16.04.2024 | Infektiologie | Nachrichten

Kein Abstrich bei chronischen Wunden ohne Entzündungszeichen!

10.04.2024 | Postoperative Schmerztherapie | Nachrichten

Chronische Schmerzen nach Op. oft mit neuropathischer Komponente

10.04.2024 | Narbenhernie | Nachrichten

Deutlich weniger Narbenhernien mit der Small-Bites-Technik
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.