1531 Evaluating Quality Internet Health Resources in Pediatric Urology

You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatrics: Congenital Anomalies - Lower Urinary Tract & Genitalia I1 Apr 20121531 EVALUATING QUALITY INTERNET HEALTH RESOURCES IN PEDIATRIC UROLOGY Angela M. Fast, Christopher M. Deibert, Gregory W. Hruby, and Kenneth I. Glassberg Angela M. FastAngela M. Fast New York, NY More articles by this author , Christopher M. DeibertChristopher M. Deibert New York, NY More articles by this author , Gregory W. HrubyGregory W. Hruby New York, NY More articles by this author , and Kenneth I. GlassbergKenneth I. Glassberg New York, NY More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.1299AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Many patients and their parents utilize the Internet for health related information, but the quality of health related information on the Internet is largely uncontrolled and unregulated. Inaccurate or low-quality information can be misleading, which may contribute to unrealistic expectations and poor decision-making, resulting in dissatisfied patients and parents. To further evaluate information quality on the Internet, the Health on the Net Foundation Code (HONcode) and DISCERN Plus were used to evaluate the pediatric urological search terms ‘circumcision,' ‘vesicoureteral reflux' and ‘posterior urethral valves.' METHODS A google.com search was performed to identify the top 20 websites for each term. The HONcode toolbar was utilized to determine whether each website was HONcode accredited and reported the overall frequency of accreditation for each term. The DISCERN Plus instrument was used to score each website in accordance with the DISCERN Handbook. High and low scoring criteria were then compared. RESULTS A total of 60 websites were identified. For the search terms ‘circumcision,' ‘posterior urethral valves' and ‘vesicoureteral reflux,' 25 to 30% of the websites were HONcode certified. Out of the maximum score of 80, the average DISCERN Plus score was 60 (SD=12, range 38-78), 40 (SD=12, range 22-69) and 45 (SD=19, range 16-78), respectively for the three. The lowest scoring Discern criteria included ‘Does it describe how the treatment choices affect overall quality of life?,' ‘Does it describe the risks of each treatment?' and ‘Does it provide details of additional sources of support and information?' (1.35, 1.83 and 1.95 out of 5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate the poor quality of information that patients and their parents may use in decision-making and treatment choices. The two lowest scoring DISCERN Plus criteria involved education on quality of life issues and risks of treatment, which may greatly influence informed decision-making about medical treatment. Not providing information on these issues can alter expectations of treatment outcomes and may lead to dissatisfaction in their care. Physicians should be aware of the quality of information on the Internet and how to best use these tools, particularly Honcode and DISCERN Plus, to help guide patients and their parents to websites with valid information. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e619-e620 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Angela M. Fast New York, NY More articles by this author Christopher M. Deibert New York, NY More articles by this author Gregory W. Hruby New York, NY More articles by this author Kenneth I. Glassberg New York, NY More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...