This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Patient-targeted websites on CRC screening vary in quality, readability
Websites that provide patients with information on colorectal cancer screening vary significantly in terms of quality and readability, according to recent findings published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Importantly, the majority of patient web resources evaluated did not provide information on polyp surveillance, and there was poor correlation between a website’s quality and its Google ranking.
“Because the efficacy of a CRC screening program is dependent on informed participation, assessing the availability and quality of online information aimed at screenees is of crucial importance,” researchers wrote. “Therefore, the aim of this study was to rate the quality, accuracy, and readability of web-based information on CRC screening from a screenee perspective.”
In addition to using validated scores to assess website quality, reliability and readability, the researchers developed a website accuracy score to assess information on CRC screening, and a polyp score to assess information on polyps, colonoscopy outcomes and surveillance guidelines. Two independent raters then evaluated the top 30 Google search results using these scores.
Of the 20 websites included in the final analysis, the mean accuracy score was 26 out of 44 (range, 9-41), the highest of which were designated to www.cancer.org, www.bowelcanceraustralia.org and www.uptodate.com. There was no correlation between Google rank and the website accuracy score, suggesting high quality websites may be missed by patients.
The median global quality score was three out of five (range, 2-5), indicating that the information on most websites was moderate in quality, and the median polyp score was three out of 10 (range, 0-10).
The median overall LIDA score was 74% and the median DISCERN score was 45; both are validated tools, which indicated moderate quality of information.
Finally, the mean Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score was 48 (range, 27-76), with 30% of websites having a FRE score greater than 60 and thus deemed as having a reading level acceptable for the general public. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 11, which indicates the text would be understandable to an average 11th grade student in the U.S.
To help combat the lack of accurate and accessible web resources for patients, the AGA recently launched its new Patient INFO Center. According to a press release, these resources are written at the lowest reading level possible (FRE score of 59.7), and include comprehensive information on all FDA-approved CRC screening options and their recommended surveillance intervals.
“High-quality and readable websites are essential to provide patients with reliable information to make informed decisions on colorectal screening and surveillance participation,” study investigator Eline Schreuders, MD, from Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands, said in the press release. “We appreciate that AGA kept these principles in mind when developing their new PatientINFO Center. We look forward to incorporating this resource into future studies.” – by Adam Leitenberger
Disclosures: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.