Evaluation of the quality,understandability and utilizability of online coronary heart disease information
Received date: 2018-08-12
Online published: 2019-03-21
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。
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 . DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2019.03.002
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.
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [8] | Chen WH, Lee KH . More than search? Informational and participatory eHealth behaviors[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014,30:103-109. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |