Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Internet is used increasingly by providers as a tool for disseminating pain-related health information and by patients as a resource about health conditions and treatment options. However, health information on the Internet remains unregulated and varies in quality, accuracy and readability. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of pain websites, and explain variability in quality and readability between pain websites.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Five key terms (pain, chronic pain, back pain, arthritis, and fibromyalgia) were entered into the Google, Yahoo and MSN search engines. Websites were assessed using the DISCERN instrument as a quality index. Grade level readability ratings were assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Algorithm. Univariate (using alpha = 0.20) and multivariable regression (using alpha = 0.05) analyses were used to explain the variability in DISCERN scores and grade level readability using potential for commercial gain, health related seals of approval, language(s) and multimedia features as independent variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 300 websites were assessed, 21 excluded in accordance with the exclusion criteria and 110 duplicate websites, leaving 161 unique sites. About 6.8% (11/161 websites) of the websites offered patients' commercial products for their pain condition, 36.0% (58/161 websites) had a health related seal of approval, 75.8% (122/161 websites) presented information in English only and 40.4% (65/161 websites) offered an interactive multimedia experience. In assessing the quality of the unique websites, of a maximum score of 80, the overall average DISCERN Score was 55.9 (13.6) and readability (grade level) of 10.9 (3.9). The multivariable regressions demonstrated that website seals of approval (<it>P </it>= 0.015) and potential for commercial gain (<it>P </it>= 0.189) were contributing factors to higher DISCERN scores, while seals of approval (<it>P </it>= 0.168) and interactive multimedia (<it>P </it>= 0.244) contributed to lower grade level readability, as indicated by estimates of the beta coefficients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The overall quality of pain websites is moderate, with some shortcomings. Websites that scored high using the DISCERN questionnaire contained health related seals of approval and provided commercial solutions for pain related conditions while those with low readability levels offered interactive multimedia options and have been endorsed by health seals.</p

Are Canadian clinicians providing consistent sport-related concussion management advice?

Objective: To compare the knowledge and use of recommendations for the management of sport-related concussion (SRC) among sport and exercise medicine physicians (SEMPs) and emergency department physicians (EDPs) to assess the success of SRC knowledge transfer across Canada. Design: A self-administered, multiple-choice survey accessed via e-mail by SEMPs and EDPs. The survey had been assessed for content validity. Setting: Canada. Participants: The survey was completed between May and July 2012 by SEMPs who had passed the diploma examination of the Canadian Academy of Sport and Exercise Medicine and by EDPs who did not hold this diploma. Main outcome measures: Knowledge and identification of sources of concussion management information, use of concussion diagnosis strategies, and whether physicians use common and consistent terminology when explaining cognitive rest strategies to patients after an SRC. Results: There was a response rate of 28% (305 of 1085). The SEMP and EDP response rates were 41% (147 of 360) and 22% (158 of 725), respectively. Of the responses, 41% of EDPs and 3% of SEMPs were unaware of any consensus statements on concussion in sport; 74% of SEMPs used the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool, version 2 (SCAT2), “usually or always,” whereas 88% of EDPs never used the SCAT2. When queried about how cognitive rest could best be achieved after an SRC, no consistent answer was documented. Conclusion: Differences and a lack of consistency in the implementation of recommendations for SRC patients were identified for SEMPs and EDPs. It appears that the SCAT2 is used more in the SEMP setting than in the emergency context. Further knowledge transfer efforts and research should address the barriers to achieving more consistent advice given by physicians who attend SRC patients