Adapting the content of cancer web sites to the information needs of patients: reliability and readability.

BACKGROUND: People who use the Internet to research health topics do not usually find all the information they need and do not trust what they read. This study was designed to assess the reliability, accessibility, readability, and popularity of cancer Web sites in Spanish and to analyze the suitability of Web site content in accordance with the specific information needs of cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a two-phase, cross-sectional, descriptive study. The first phase involved data gathering through online searches and direct observation. The second phase involved individual structured interviews with 169 patients with breast, prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer. Spearman rank correlations were calculated between variables. RESULTS: Most sites belonged to nonprofit organizations, followed by universities or medical centers (14%). Thirty-one percent of the Web sites had quality seals, 59% provided details of authorship, 62% provided references to bibliographic sources, 38% identified their funding sources, and 54% showed the date of their last update. Twenty-one percent of the Web sites did not meet the minimum accessibility criteria. With regard to readability, 24% of the texts were considered to be "quite difficult." Patients' information needs vary depending on the type of cancer they have, although all patients want to know about the likelihood of a cure, survival rates, the side effects, and risks of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The health information on cancer available on the Internet in Spanish is not very reliable, accessible, or readable and is not necessarily the information that breast, kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer patients require. The content of cancer Web sites needs to be assessed according to the information needs of patients.

[Assessment of websites with information on medicines]. / Evaluación de sitios web con información sobre medicamentos.

AIMS: To identify websites with information on medicines and assess, using experts, their adherence to codes of conduct and recommendations by the WHO. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study based on an ad hoc designed questionnaire (performed independently by 2 reviewers). The websites were identified by the Delphi technique (35 experts). SETTING: Websites with information on medicines. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 35 websites selected by the Delphi technique. An acceptable level of stability was achieved in the third round (interquartile variability; <0.05). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Responsibility, transparency and honesty, authorship of the information, content review policy, privacy and data protection policies, updated information and accessibility. A descriptive analysis of compliance was carried out and the kappa coefficient was estimated to evaluate the agreement between assessors (Fleiss's Criteria). RESULTS: The National Prescribing Service Limited (NPS), PubMed, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of American Medical Association, The Lancet, Fisterra and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence stood out with an overall high fulfilment of the questionnaire. The updated information dimension was the lowest evaluation for the different websites. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the web sites evaluated varied widely. Although there are several websites, which are detailed in the article, with high overall scores.