冠心病网络健康信息的质量、可理解性和可实施性评估

doi:10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2019.03.002

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的评估冠心病网络健康信息的质量、可理解性和可实施性。方法以“冠心病”作为检索词,在百度、360、搜狗三大搜索引擎检索含冠心病健康信息的网站,由2名评分者独立评估纳入网站的冠心病信息的质量、可理解性和可实施性。信息的质量评估使用DISCERN工具,信息的可理解性和可实施性评估使用患者教育材料评估工具。结果纳入的34个网站,冠心病网络信息质量得分为（48.50±6.83）分,可理解性得分为69.23%（53.85%,73.90%）,可实施性得分为33.33%（20.00%,40.00%）。结论冠心病相关网站健康信息质量等级为中等水平,但信息的可理解性和可实施性较低,这对用户理解能力和行动能力要求较高。网站信息发布应规范网络健康信息质量、可理解性和可实施性,以适应更多的网络用户。

关键词: 冠心病, 消费者健康信息, 质量, 可理解性, 可实施性

Abstract:

Objective To evaluatethe quality,understandability and utilizability of online coronary heart disease information. Methods With “coronary heart disease” as the search term,Baidu,360 and Sogou were searched for disease relevant information.Two independent raters assessed the quality,understandability and utilizability of the information.The quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Understandability and utilizability were assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Print Materials（PEMAT-P）. Results A total of 34 web sites were included in this analysis. The overall mean quality rating was（48.50±6.83）,the understandability was 69.23%（53.85%,73.90%）,and the utilizability was 33.33%（20.00%,40.00%）. Conclusion The quality of information found online was on moderate level. The understandability and utilizability were low. The quality,understandability and utilizability of network health information should be standardized in order to adapt to more network users.

Key words: Coronary Disease, Consumer Health Information, Quality, Understandability, Utilizability

厉锦巧,张邢炜,张伟,周鑫,吴琪,柴玲. 冠心病网络健康信息的质量、可理解性和可实施性评估[J]. 中华护理教育, 2019, 16(3): 173-177.

Jin-qiao LI,Xing-wei ZHANG,Wei ZHANG,Xin ZHOU,Qi WU,Ling CHAI. Evaluation of the quality,understandability and utilizability of online coronary heart disease information[J]. Chinese Journal of Nursing Education, 2019, 16(3): 173-177.

图/表 4

图1

表1

表2

表3

参考文献 26

[1]	陈伟伟, 高润霖, 刘力生 , 等. 《中国心血管病报告2017》概要[J]. 中国循环杂志, 2018,33(1):1-8.
[2]	Palacios J, Lee GA, Duaso M , et al. Internet-delivered self-management support for improving coronary heart disease and self-management-related outcomes:a systematic review[J]. J Cardiovasc Nurs, 2017,32(4):E9-E23.
[3]	Huynh-Hohnbaum AL, Marshall L, Villa VM , et al. Self-management of heart disease in older adults[J]. Home Health Care Serv Q, 2015,34(3-4):159-172. doi: 10.1080/01621424.2015.1092909 pmid: 26566582
[4]	Fox S . Healthtopics[EB/OL].[2018-07-23]..
[5]	Kennedy B, Funk C . Pew Research Center Internet Science Tech RSS[EB/OL].[2018-07-23]..
[6]	Zhang Y, Sun YL, Xie B . Quality of health information for consumers on the web:a systematic review of indicators,criteria,tools,and evaluation results[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015,66(10):2071-2084. doi: 10.1002/asi.23311
[7]	Wasserman M, Baxter NN, Rosen B , et al. Systematic review of internet patient information on colorectal cancer surgery[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 2014,57(1):64-69. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000011 pmid: 24316947
[8]	Chen WH, Lee KH . More than search? Informational and participatory eHealth behaviors[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014,30:103-109. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.028
[9]	Lee K, Hoti K, Hughes JD , et al. Consumeruse of “Dr Google”:a survey on health information-seeking behaviors and navigational needs[J]. J Med Internet Res, 2015,17(12):e288. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4345 pmid: 4710847
[10]	彭丽, 唐广, 杨欢 , 等. 泛在网络环境下高血压病健康信息的质量评价[J]. 现代预防医学, 2017,44(20):3727-3730.
[11]	陆春吉, 杨玉洁, 王璐 , 等. 基于HONcode标准的健康网站质量对比研究[J]. 中国医院管理, 2016,36(12):58-60.
[12]	Stat Counter Global Stats . Search engine market share China[EB/OL].[2018-07-23]. 2017.
[13]	Chitika. The value of Google result positioning[EB/OL].[2018-07-23]. https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/value-google-result-positioning/.
[14]	Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G , et al. DISCERN:an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices[J]. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1999,53(2):105-111. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105 pmid: 10396471352
[15]	Ved R, Cobbold N, Igbagiri K , et al. Online patient information on Vagus Nerve Stimulation:How reliable is it for facilitating shared decision making?[J]. Seizure, 2017,50:125-129. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2017.06.009 pmid: 28651125
[16]	Ademiluyi G, Rees CE, Sheard CE . Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet[J]. Patient Educ Coun, 2003,50(2):151-155. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00124-6 pmid: 12781930
[17]	Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C . Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool(PEMAT):a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information[J]. Patient Educ Couns, 2014,96(3):395-403. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027 pmid: 24973195
[18]	Murray TE, Mansoor T, Bowden DJ , et al. Uterine artery embolization:an analysis of online patient information quality and readability with historical comparison[J]. Acad Radiol, 2018,25(5):619-625. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.11.007
[19]	Robins S, Barr HJ, Idelson R , et al. Online health information regarding male infertility:an evaluation of readability,suitability,and quality[J]. Interact J Med Res, 2016,5(4):e25. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.6440 pmid: 27769954
[20]	张黎, 杜传海, 冉宏 , 等. 药物与介入治疗对冠心病患者生活质量影响的研究[J]. 西南国防医药, 2015,25(10):1061-1063. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-0188.2015.10.007
[21]	张驰 . 老年冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病中MFG-E8的作用及价值[J]. 中国实验诊断学, 2017,21(9):1552-1553.
[22]	唐小利, 杜建, 李姣 , 等. 国外健康信息网站评价工具及我国相关网站质量评价体系框架设计[J]. 中国健康教育, 2015,31(3):297-301,315. doi: 10.16168/j.cnki.issn.1002-9982.2015.03.016
[23]	Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR , et al. The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health websites[J]. Comput Biol Med, 1998,28(5):603-610. doi: 10.1016/S0010-4825(98)00037-7
[24]	Cajita MI, Rodney T, Xu J , et al. Quality and health literacy demand of online heart failure information[J]. J Cardiovasc Nurs, 2017,32(2):156-164. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000324 pmid: 26938508
[25]	Bonner C, Fajardo MA, Hui S , et al. Clinical validity,understandability,and actionability of online cardiovascular disease risk calculators:systematic review[J]. J Med Internet Res, 2018,20(2):e29. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8538 pmid: 29391344
[26]	Diviani N, van den Putte B, Meppelink CS , et al. Exploring the role of health literacy in the evaluation of online health information:insights from a mixed-methods study[J]. Patient Educ Couns, 2016,99(6):1017-1025. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.007 pmid: 26817407

项目	得分
目的是否明确	4.59±0.49
是否达到目标	4.21±0.76
是否相关	4.53±0.65
信息来源是否清晰	2.09±1.46
是否标明信息产生的时间	3.59±1.57
是否平衡或非偏倚	3.18±0.78
是否提供其他相关信息的来源	4.21±1.28
是否提到不确定性方面	1.32±0.47
是否描述了每一个治疗的原理	3.74±1.01
是否描述了每一个治疗的好处	3.00±0.64
是否描述了每一个治疗的风险	2.94±0.68
是否描述了不治疗会怎样	1.06±0.24
是否描述治疗选择对生活质量的影响	1.85±0.65
是否清晰说明不只一个可能的治疗选项	3.53±0.98
是否列出需要考虑与人讨论的问题	1.53±1.17
全面质量评价	3.15±0.60

项目	同意	不同意	不适用
目的明确	30	4	-
无多余信息	29	5	-
使用日常用语	10	24	-
合理使用医学术语	10	24	-
使用主动语态	34	0	-
数字清晰易懂	26	2	6
不需要用户执行计算	25	9	-
信息分解成短段	31	3	-
具有丰富的标题	21	13	-
以逻辑顺序呈现信息	31	3	-
提供总结	3	31	-
使用视觉线索来吸引关注	28	6	-
使用视觉辅助工具	6	28	-
视觉辅助工具强化内容	7	3	24
视觉辅助工具有明确的标题	1	9	24
使用清晰且整齐的插图	9	1	24
表格简短	3	0	31

项目	同意	不同意	不适用
至少一个行动可采取	31	3	-
直接向用户指出所需行动	21	13	-
将行动分解为可管理的明确步骤	2	32	-
提供具体工具帮用户采取行动	1	33	-
提供说明或案例帮助执行计算	1	8	25
解释如何使用图表	0	2	32