The Quality of Internet Websites for People Experiencing Psychosis: Pilot Expert Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians need to be able to assess the quality of the available information to aid clinical decision-making. The internet has become an important source of health information for consumers and their families. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to rate the quality of websites with psychosis-related information (to provide clinicians with a basis for recommending material to guide clinical decision-making with consumers and their families), using a validated instrument as well as a purpose-developed checklist, and consider improvement in quality over a 4-year period. METHODS: Two measures of website quality were used: the DISCERN scale and the Psychosis Website Quality Checklist (PWQC). Terms related to psychosis, including "psychotic," "psychosis," "schizophrenia," "delusion," and "hallucination," were entered into Google, and the first 25 results were analyzed. In total, 6 raters with varying health professional backgrounds were used to evaluate the websites across two time points: January-March 2014 and January-March 2018. RESULTS: Of the 25 websites rated, only the 6 highest ranked websites achieved a DISCERN score, indicating that they were of "good" quality (51-62 out of a possible 75), while the mean score of the websites (mean 43.96, SD 12.08) indicated an overall "fair" quality. The PWQC revealed that websites scored highly on "availability and usability" (mean 16.82, SD 3.96) but poorly on "credibility" (mean 20.99, SD 6.68), "currency" (mean 5.16, SD 2.62), and "breadth and accuracy" (mean 77.87, SD 23.20). Most sites lacked information about early intervention, recreational drug use and suicide risk, with little change in content over time. Stating an editorial or review process on the website (found in 56% of websites) was significantly associated with a higher quality score on both scales (the DISCERN scale, P=.002; the PWQC, P=.006). CONCLUSIONS: The information on the internet available for clinicians to recommend to people affected by psychosis tended to be of "fair" quality. While higher-quality websites exist, it is generally not easy way to assess this on face value. Evidence of an editorial or review process was one indicator of website quality. While sites generally provided basic clinical information, most lacked material addressing weighing up risks and benefits of medication and alternatives, the role of coercive treatment and other more contentious issues. Insufficient emphasis is placed on detailed information on early intervention and importance of lifestyle modifications or how families and friends can contribute. These are likely to be the very answers that consumers and carers are seeking and this gap contributes to unmet needs among this group. We suggest that clinicians should be aware of what is available and where there are gaps.

Do user preferences align with human factors assessment scores of drug-drug interaction alerts?

This study aimed to assess drug-drug interaction alert interfaces and to examine the relationship between compliance with human factors principles and user-preferences of alerts. Three reviewers independently evaluated drug-drug interaction alert interfaces in seven electronic systems using the Instrument-for-Evaluating-Human-Factors-Principles-in-Medication-Related-Decision-Support-Alerts (I-MeDeSA). Fifty-three doctors and pharmacists completed a survey to rate the alert interfaces from best to worst and reported on liked and disliked features. Human factors compliance and user-preferences of alerts were compared. Statistical analysis revealed no significant association between I-MeDeSA scores and user-preferences. However, the strengths and weaknesses of drug-drug interaction alerts from users' perspectives were in-line with the human factors constructs evaluated by the I-MeDeSA. I-MeDeSA in its current form, is unable to identify alerts that are preferred by the users. The design principles assessed by I-MeDeSA appear to be sound, but its arbitrary allocation of points to each human factors construct may not reflect the relative importance that the end-users place on different aspects of alert design.

The convergence between self-reports and observer ratings of financial skills and direct assessment of financial capabilities in patients with schizophrenia: more detail is not always better.

Despite multiple lines of evidence suggesting that people with schizophrenia tend to overestimate their ability to perform everyday tasks such as money management, self-report methods are still widely used to assess functioning. In today's technology driven financial world patients are faced with increasingly complex financial management tasks. To meet these challenges adequate financial skills are required. Thus, accurate assessments of these abilities are critical to decisions regarding a patient's need for support such as a financial trustee. As part of the larger VALERO study, 195 patients with schizophrenia were asked to self-report their everyday financial skills (five common financial tasks) with the Independent Living Skills Survey (ILSS). They were also assessed with performance-based measures of neuro-cognition and functional capacity with a focus on financial skills. In addition, a friend, relative, or clinician informant was interviewed with the ILSS and a best estimate rating of functioning was generated. Scores on the performance-based measures of financial skills and neuropsychological tests were uncorrelated with self-reported financial activities. Interviewer and all informant judgments of financial abilities were also minimally correlated with performance on functional skill tests. Discrete financial skills appear to be challenging for clinicians to rate with accuracy without the use of direct assessments. Direct assessment of financial skills seems prudent when making determinations about the need for guardianship or other financial supervision.