scholarly journals Patient-Oriented Cancer Information on the Internet: A Comparison of Wikipedia and a Professionally Maintained Database

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malolan S. Rajagopalan ◽  
Vineet K. Khanna ◽  
Yaacov Leiter ◽  
Meghan Stott ◽  
Timothy N. Showalter ◽  
...  

The coverage, accuracy, and readability of cancer information on Wikipedia are compared with the patient-orientated National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query comprehensive cancer database.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seigo Mitsutake ◽  
Ai Shibata ◽  
Kaori Ishii ◽  
Rina Miyawaki ◽  
Koichiro Oka

BACKGROUND To develop websites that enhance Internet users’ health knowledge, it is important to identify relevant factors associated with obtaining health knowledge via the Internet. Although an association between eHealth literacy (eHL) and knowledge of colorectal cancer (CRC) has been reported, little is known whether eHL is associated with obtaining knowledge of CRC via the Internet. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to compare the results obtained from Internet users with high or low eHL in searching and using a reputable cancer website to gain CRC knowledge. METHODS This study used respondents to Internet based pre-and post-surveys conducted in 2012. Potential respondents (n = 3,307) were identified from registered individuals aged 40–59 years (n = 461,160) in a Japanese Internet survey company. A total of 1,069 participants responded (response rate: 32.3%), and these pre-survey responders were then divided into high or low eHL groups using the Japanese eHealth Literacy Scale median score (23.5 points). From each group, 130 randomly selected individuals were invited to review the contents of a reputable CRC website, the Cancer Information Service managed by the National Cancer Center, and to respond to a post-survey via e-mail; responses were obtained from 107 individuals from each group. Twenty responses to knowledge statements regarding the definition, risk factors, screening prevention and symptoms of CRC were obtained at pre- and post-surveys, and differences in the correct responses between high and low eHL groups compared using the McNemar test. RESULTS The mean age of the participants was 49.1 (5.5) years. Four statements showed a significant increase in correct responses in both eHL groups pre- and post-survey: “S4. The risk of CRC is greater as a person gets older” (high eHL: P = 0.039, low eHL: P = 0.012), “S8. Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for CRC” (high eHL: P < 0.001, low eHL: P = 0.020), “S11. Obesity is a risk factor for CRC” (high eHL: P = 0.030, low eHL: P = 0.047), and “S12. Excess alcohol consumption is a risk factor for CRC” (high eHL: P = 0.002, low eHL: P = 0.003). Three statements showed a statistically significant increase in correct responses in the high eHL group only: “S1. CRC is cancer of the colon or rectum” (P = 0.003), “S5. The risk of CRC is the same between men and women” (P = 0.041), and “S9. Red meat intake is a risk factor for CRC” (P = 0.002), whereas only one response did in the low eHL group: “S17. Bloody stools are a symptom of CRC” (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS Low eHL Internet users appeared less capable of obtaining knowledge of CRC through searching and understanding information from a reputable cancer website than high eHL Internet users.


1996 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivor Benjamin ◽  
Joel W. Goldwein ◽  
Stephen C. Rubin ◽  
W.Gillies McKenna

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 16-29
Author(s):  
Jiali Ye ◽  
Zhiheng Xu ◽  
Bamidele Adesunloye

Information seeking has significant impact on improving cancer preventive activities and health decision making. This study sought to compare Black and White adults on cancer information seeking and the choice of primary information sources. Non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults completed Health Information National Trends Surveys (HINTS) collected in 2003 and in 2005. The results of bivariate analyses showed that Whites were more likely than Blacks to be cancer information seekers for both years (2003: 49.0% vs. 40.8%, p < .001; 2005: 54.6% vs. 46.9%, p = .008). However, after controlling for sociodemographic variables, race was not significantly associated with cancer information seeking. Both racial groups increased their likelihood of cancer information seeking from 2003 to 2005, although the increase was only statistically significant for Whites ( p < .001). Health providers and the Internet were the top two most selected primary cancer information sources for both racial groups. These findings indicate that sociodemographic factors, such as gender, education, and cancer history, may shape the racial difference in health information seeking among the general population. Among all the information sources, health care providers and the Internet play the most important role in providing cancer-related information.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 200-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuf Moolla ◽  
Ahmed Adam ◽  
Marlon Perera ◽  
Nathan Lawrentschuk

Background/Aims: In today's information era, patients often seek information regarding health using the internet. We assessed reliability and validity of internet information regarding ‘prostate cancer'. Methods: Search term ‘prostate cancer' used on Google website (June 2017). Critical analysis was performed on first 100 hits using JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN score, Health on the Net. Results: 33 500 000 hits returned. Top 100 hits were critically analyzed. Ten links [duplicate links (n = 7), book reviews (n = 1), dead sites (n = 2)] were excluded, therefore 90 were analyzed. Subcategories assessed included: commercial (53.33%), university/medical center (24.44%), government (13.33%); non-governmental/ non-profit organizations (8.89%). Sub-type of information content assessed included: factual (74.44%), clinical trials (18.89%); stories (5.56%); question and answer (1.11%). Website rated as HONcode seal positive (14,44%) or seal negative (85,56%). Website content based on JAMA benchmarks: 0 benchmarks (4.44%), 1 benchmark (16.67%), 2 benchmarks (34.44%), 3 benchmarks (27.78%), 4 benchmarks (16.67%). DISCERN score rated: ‘low' score (16-32) = 12 websites (13.33%), ‘moderate' score (33-64 points) = 68 websites (75.56%), ‘high' score (≥ 65 points) = 10 websites (11.11%). Conclusion: Critical assessment of ‘Prostate Cancer' information on the internet, showed that overall quality was observed to be accurate, however majority of individual websites are unreliable as a source of information by itself for patients. Doctors and patients need to be aware of this ‘quality vs quantity' discrepancy when sourcing PCa information on the internet.


2010 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Christine Hill-Kayser ◽  
Carolyn Vachani ◽  
Margaret K Hampshire ◽  
James M Metz ◽  
◽  
...  

Over the past decade, the world has demonstrated an increased interest in and awareness of the unique needs of cancer survivors. Survivorship care plans are a communication tool intended to provide guidelines for the healthcare of survivors as they complete active cancer care, and for the duration of their lives. The Internet represents a unique way to communicate with cancer survivors, and data from several groups indicate that increasing numbers of survivors both desire information about their care and seek this information on the Internet. A handful of US-based groups have developed Internet-based tools for the creation of survivorship care plans. The first of these, the LIVESTRONG Care Plan (www.livestrongcareplan.org), is available via theOncoLinkcancer information website based at the University of Pennsylvania. Data from the first three years since the launch of this tool demonstrate increasing use by survivors from nearly every continent, with international users accounting for 16% of total users. Data from these users also demonstrate wide variability with regard to receipt of previous survivorship information and treatment summaries based on location of residence. This variation emphasises the vital role that Internet-based survivorship care plans may continue to play in the care of survivors worldwide.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document