IVC Filter - Assessing the Readability and Quality of Patient Information on the Internet

Overview

Journal J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord

Specialties Cardiology & Vascular Diseases
General Surgery

Date 2023 Oct 28

PMID 37898304

Authors

Tsz Ki Ko

Denise Jia Yun Tan

Sebastian Hadeed

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The internet is an increasingly favorable source of information regarding health-related issues. The aim of this study is to apply appropriate evaluation tools to assess the evidence available online about inferior vena cava (IVC) filters with a focus on quality and readability.

Methods: A search was performed during December 2022 using three popular search engines, namely Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Websites were categorized into academic, physician, commercial, and unspecified websites according to their content. Information quality was determined using Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria, the DISCERN scoring tool, and whether a Health On the Net Foundation certification (HONcode) seal was present. Readability was established using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical significance was accepted as P < .05.

Results: In total, 110 websites were included in our study. The majority of websites were categorized as commercial (25%), followed by hospital (24%), academic (21%), unspecified (16%), and physician (14%). Average scores for all websites using JAMA and DISCERN were 1.93 ± 1.19 (median, 1.5; range, 0-4) and 45.20 ± 12.58 (median, 45.5; range, 21-75), respectively. The highest JAMA mean score of 3.07 ± 1.16 was allocated to physician websites, and the highest DISCERN mean score of 52.85 ± 12.66 was allocated to hospital websites. The HONcode seal appeared on two of the selected websites. Physician, hospital, and unspecified websites had a significantly higher mean JAMA score than academic and commercial websites (all with P < .001). Hospital websites had a significantly higher mean DISCERN score than academic (P = .007), commercial (P < .001), and unspecified websites (P = .017). Readability evaluation generated a mean FRES score of 51.57 ±12.04, which represented a 10th to 12th grade reading level and a mean FKGL score of 8.20 ± 1.70, which represented an 8th to 10th grade reading level. Only 12 sources were found to meet the ≤6th grade target reading level. No significant correlation was found between overall DISCERN score and overall FRES score.

Conclusions: The study results demonstrate that the quality of online information about IVC filters is suboptimal, and academic and commercial websites, in particular, must enhance their content quality regarding the use of IVC filters. Considering the discontinuation of the HONcode as a standardized quality assessment marker, it is recommended that a similar certification tool be developed and implemented for the accreditation of patient information online.

Citing Articles

Leveraging Generative Artificial Intelligence Models in Patient Education on Inferior Vena Cava Filters.

Singh S, Jamal A, Qureshi F, Zaidi R, Qureshi F Clin Pract. 2024; 14(4):1507-1514.

PMID: 39194925 PMC: 11352489. DOI: 10.3390/clinpract14040121.

References

Risk A, Dzenowagis J . Review of internet health information quality initiatives. J Med Internet Res. 2002; 3(4):E28. PMC: 1761913. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3.4.e28. View

Chan T, Hwang Y, Gill H, Cheung C, Ting C, Beh P . Increasing incidence of venous thromboembolism due to cancer-associated thrombosis in Hong Kong Chinese. Thromb Res. 2014; 134(5):1157-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2014.08.008. View

Moreira I, Ventura S, Ramos I, Rodrigues P . Development and assessment of an e-learning course on breast imaging for radiographers: a stratified randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(1):e3. PMC: 4296101. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3344. View

Heng H, Jazayeri D, Shaw L, Kiegaldie D, Hill A, Morris M . Hospital falls prevention with patient education: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2020; 20(1):140. PMC: 7161005. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-01515-w. View

Morahan-Martin J . How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005; 7(5):497-510. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.497. View

Olkun H, Demirkaya A, Aras B . The quality of Internet information on lingual orthodontics in the English language, with DISCERN and JAMA. J Orthod. 2019; 46(1):20-26. DOI: 10.1177/1465312518824100. View

Dalziel K, Leveridge M, Steele S, Izard J . An analysis of the readability of patient information materials for common urological conditions. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016; 10(5-6):167-170. PMC: 5045339. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.3578. View

Aun J, Hulten E, Nguyen B, Twerdahl E . Metal in motion: a case report of inferior vena cava filter migration. Eur Heart J Case Rep. 2023; 7(1):ytad003. PMC: 9851413. DOI: 10.1093/ehjcr/ytad003. View

Gossner J . Lung cancer screening-don't forget the chest radiograph. World J Radiol. 2014; 6(4):116-8. PMC: 4000607. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i4.116. View

10.

Aldridge M . Writing and designing readable patient education materials. Nephrol Nurs J. 2004; 31(4):373-7. View

11.

Gomez-Outes A, Terleira-Fernandez A, Lecumberri R, Suarez-Gea M, Vargas-Castrillon E . Direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2014; 134(4):774-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2014.06.020. View

12.

Winker M, Flanagin A, White J, Andrews K, Kennett R, DeAngelis C . Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association. JAMA. 2000; 283(12):1600-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.12.1600. View

13.

Duffett L, Carrier M . Inferior vena cava filters. J Thromb Haemost. 2016; 15(1):3-12. DOI: 10.1111/jth.13564. View

14.

Wrigley Kelly N, Murray K, McCarthy C, OShea D . An objective analysis of quality and readability of online information on COVID-19. Health Technol (Berl). 2021; 11(5):1093-1099. PMC: 8222704. DOI: 10.1007/s12553-021-00574-2. View

15.

Diviani N, van den Putte B, Giani S, Van Weert J . Low health literacy and evaluation of online health information: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(5):e112. PMC: 4468598. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4018. View

16.

Broderick J, McCarthy A, Hogan N . Osteotomy around the knee: Assessment of quality, content and readability of online information. Knee. 2020; 28:139-150. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.11.010. View

17.

Portillo I, Johnson C, Johnson S . Quality Evaluation of Consumer Health Information Websites Found on Google Using DISCERN, CRAAP, and HONcode. Med Ref Serv Q. 2021; 40(4):396-407. DOI: 10.1080/02763869.2021.1987799. View

18.

Freda M . The readability of American Academy of Pediatrics patient education brochures. J Pediatr Health Care. 2005; 19(3):151-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2005.01.013. View

19.

Kalb B, Gay S . Internet resources for education in radiology. Acad Radiol. 2003; 10 Suppl 1:S81-6. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80156-3. View

20.

Liu C, Wang D, Liu C, Jiang J, Wang X, Chen H . What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Fam Med Community Health. 2020; 8(2). PMC: 7239702. DOI: 10.1136/fmch-2020-000351. View