To improve or not to improve: assessing the quality of breast cancer information for patients on the internet

2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 1230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramawad Soobrah ◽  
L. Cameron ◽  
K. Harvey ◽  
J. Pitkin ◽  
R. Reichert
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Pomaa Akuoko

Objective. The aim of this study was to appraise the quality of information on BC available at websites run by organizations in Africa.Methods. Three searches were conducted using Google search engine to generate a list of websites. The identified websites were assessed using European Commission (EC) quality criteria for health-related websites, which comprises different assessment areas including, completeness, transparency and honesty, authority, privacy and data protection, updating of information, accountability, and accessibility.Results. Thirteen (13) websites were included in the evaluation. Majority of the websites evaluated had low scores on the completeness and transparency of their websites. Scores on accessibility were however moderate and high for most of the websites. Breast cancer-specific organizations provided the highest quality information, particularly in terms of completeness. The overall lowest and highest quality scores were 9 and 43 out of 63, respectively, and 77% of the included websites scored less than 50% of the total quality score.Conclusion. This review has provided evidence of inadequate and inaccurate BC information provided by some cancer organizations in Africa. Considerable effort is required to make BC information on the Internet a valuable and up-to-date source for both professionals and patients.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Isil Yurdaisik

Objective. Breast cancer is the most common cancer type among women worldwide. Today, health consumers search the Internet to gain health information about many diseases including breast cancer. YouTube™ is the second most commonly used website on the Internet. However, the quality and accuracy of health-related YouTube™ videos are controversial. The objective of this study was to investigate the quality and accuracy of breast cancer-related videos on YouTube™. Material and Methods. “Breast cancer” keyword was entered into YouTube™ search bar, and after excluding advertisement, duplicate, and non-English videos, the first most viewed 50 videos were analyzed. Videos’ length, the number of views, comments, likes, and dislikes were recorded. DISCERN and JAMA scores and Video Power Index (VPI) values of the videos were calculated. All videos were evaluated by two independent radiologists experienced on breast cancer. The correlation between the two observers was also analyzed. Results. Of all videos, 14% were uploaded by physicians, 26% by health channels, 20% by patients, 10% by news channels, 2% by herbalists, 2% by blog channels, and 2% by nonprofit activism channels. The mean DISCERN score was calculated as 26.70±10.99 and the mean JAMA score as 2.23±0.97. The mean VPI value, which was calculated to determine the popularity of the videos, was found as 94.10±4.48. A strong statistically significant correlation was found between the two observers in terms of both DISCERN and JAMA scores. There was an excellent agreement between the two observers. Conclusion. The overall quality of the viewed videos was found as poor. Healthcare professionals should be encouraged to upload breast cancer-related videos with accurate information to promote patients for screening and direct them appropriately.


The Breast ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 376-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Nilsson-Ihrfelt ◽  
Marie-Louise Fjällskog ◽  
Carl Blomqvist ◽  
Johan Ahlgren ◽  
Per Edlund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 71-71
Author(s):  
Shayan Kassirian ◽  
Lawson Eng ◽  
Chelsea Paulo ◽  
Ilana Geist ◽  
Alexander Magony ◽  
...  

71 Background: Social media and internet is increasingly used by patients for cancer education, which can affect provider-patient communication. Usage habits of the adolescent-young adult (AYA; aged < 40 years), adult (age 40- < 65 years), and geriatric cancer populations (age 65+ years) are likely different. Methods: Using age-specific sampling, cancer patients across all disease sites cross-sectionally were asked to complete a survey of demographics, health status, and social media/online resource use for cancer education. Clinical information was abstracted. Results: Of 429 approached, 320 participated (126 AYA, 128 adults, 66 elderly). Males comprised 44%; 72% had post-secondary education; 31% had household incomes of > $100,000. Elderly patients were most likely to refuse participation (33% of elderly approached vs 16% AYA; p < 0.001), with the most common reason being "I do not use internet resources/don't plan on using them"(96% of all elderly refusals with available data). Among respondents, the proportion who utilized the internet for cancer education was 76%, 76% and 70% in AYA, adults, and elderly, respectively (p > 0.5). The use of social media tools in respondents was 49%, 40%, and 36%, respectively (p = 0.16 across age groups). While 75% of patients felt they could judge the quality of cancer-related information on the internet (no differences by age group, p > 0.5), a significantly lower 43% (p < 0.001) felt similarly confident to judge the quality of social media; AYA patients (49%) were numerically more likely to feel confident than seniors (36%; p = 0.16). Elderly were less likely to want online health record access (p = 0.015), treatment option (p = 0.042) and side effect education (p < 0.001), future care plan (p < 0.001) and wellness programs compared to others (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Although cancer patients used social media frequently, confidence is lacking on the quality of cancer information obtained (across all age groups), while elderly perceive fewer benefits of using online/social media related to their cancer. Guidelines for patients on how to assess quality and appropriately use social media could help facilitate patient-provider communication.


The Breast ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 514-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.M. Quinn ◽  
M.A. Corrigan ◽  
S.M. McHugh ◽  
D. Murphy ◽  
J. O’Mullane ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document