11 research outputs found

    Adopting Quality Criteria for Websites Providing Medical Information About Rare Diseases

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The European Union considers diseases to be rare when they affect less than 5 in 10,000 people. It is estimated that there are between 5000 and 8000 different rare diseases. Consistent with this diversity, the quality of information available on the Web varies considerably. Thus, quality criteria for websites about rare diseases are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate a catalog of quality criteria suitable for rare diseases. METHODS: First, relevant certificates and quality recommendations for health information websites were identified through a comprehensive Web search. Second, all considered quality criteria of each certification program and catalog were examined, extracted into an overview table, and analyzed by thematic content. Finally, an interdisciplinary expert group verified the relevant quality criteria. RESULTS: We identified 9 quality certificates and criteria catalogs for health information websites with 304 single criteria items. Through this, we aggregated 163 various quality criteria, each assigned to one of the following categories: thematic, technical, service, content, and legal. Finally, a consensus about 13 quality criteria for websites offering medical information on rare diseases was determined. Of these categories, 4 (data protection concept, imprint, creation and updating date, and possibility to contact the website provider) were identified as being the most important for publishing medical information about rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of different quality criteria appearing within a relatively small number of criteria catalogs shows that the opinion of what is important in the quality of health information differs. In addition, to define useful quality criteria for websites about rare diseases, which are an essential source of information for many patients, a trade-off is necessary between the high standard of quality criteria for health information websites in general and the limited provision of information about some rare diseases. Finally, transparently presented quality assessments can help people to find reliable information and to assess its quality

    Adopting Quality Criteria for Websites Providing Medical Information About Rare Diseases

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The European Union considers diseases to be rare when they affect less than 5 in 10,000 people. It is estimated that there are between 5000 and 8000 different rare diseases. Consistent with this diversity, the quality of information available on the Web varies considerably. Thus, quality criteria for websites about rare diseases are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate a catalog of quality criteria suitable for rare diseases. METHODS: First, relevant certificates and quality recommendations for health information websites were identified through a comprehensive Web search. Second, all considered quality criteria of each certification program and catalog were examined, extracted into an overview table, and analyzed by thematic content. Finally, an interdisciplinary expert group verified the relevant quality criteria. RESULTS: We identified 9 quality certificates and criteria catalogs for health information websites with 304 single criteria items. Through this, we aggregated 163 various quality criteria, each assigned to one of the following categories: thematic, technical, service, content, and legal. Finally, a consensus about 13 quality criteria for websites offering medical information on rare diseases was determined. Of these categories, 4 (data protection concept, imprint, creation and updating date, and possibility to contact the website provider) were identified as being the most important for publishing medical information about rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of different quality criteria appearing within a relatively small number of criteria catalogs shows that the opinion of what is important in the quality of health information differs. In addition, to define useful quality criteria for websites about rare diseases, which are an essential source of information for many patients, a trade-off is necessary between the high standard of quality criteria for health information websites in general and the limited provision of information about some rare diseases. Finally, transparently presented quality assessments can help people to find reliable information and to assess its quality

    Conceptualization and implementation of the central information portal on rare diseases: Protocol for a qualitative study

    Get PDF
    Background: Recently, public and political interest has focused on people living with rare diseases and their health concerns. Due to the large number of different types of rare diseases and the sizable number of patients, taking action to improve the life of those affected is gaining importance. In 2013, the federal government of Germany adopted a national action plan for rare diseases, including the call to establish a central information portal on rare diseases (Zentrales Informationsportal ĂĽber seltene Erkrankungen, ZIPSE). Objective: The objective of this study, therefore, was to conduct scientific research on how such a portal must be designed to meet the needs of patients, their families, and medical professionals, and to provide high-quality information for information seekers. Methods: We chose a 3-step procedure to develop a needs-based prototype of a central information portal. In the first step, we determined the information needs of patients with rare diseases, their relatives, and health care professionals by means of qualitative interviews and their content-analytical evaluation. On the basis of this, we developed the basic structure of the portal. In the second step, we identified quality criteria for websites on rare diseases to ensure that the information linked with ZIPSE meets the quality demands. Therefore, we gathered existing criteria catalogs and discussed them in an expert workshop. In the third step, we implemented and tested the developed prototypical information portal. Results: A portal page was configured and made accessible on the Web. The structure of ZIPSE was based on the findings from 108 qualitative interviews with patients, their relatives, and health care professionals, through which numerous information needs were identified. We placed particularly important areas of information, such as symptoms, therapy, research, and advisory services, on the start page. Moreover, we defined 13 quality criteria, referring to factors such as author information, creation date, and privacy, enabling links with high-quality information. Moreover, 19 users tested all the developed routines based on usability and comprehensibility. Subsequently, we improved the visual presentation of search results and other important search functions. Conclusions: The implemented information portal, ZIPSE, provides high-quality information on rare diseases from a central point of access. By integrating the targeted groups as well as different experts on medical information during the construction, the website can assure an improved search for information for users. ZIPSE can also serve as a model for other Web-based information systems in the field of rare diseases

    Gender differences in clinicopathological features and survival in surgically treated patients with renal cell carcinoma: an analysis of the multicenter CORONA database.

    No full text
    Purpose: To investigate gender differences in clinicopathological features and to analyze the prognostic impact of gender in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients undergoing surgery. Methods: A total of 6,234 patients (eleven centers; Europe and USA) treated by radical or partial nephrectomy were included in this retrospective study (median follow-up 59 months; IQR 30-106). Gender differences in clinicopathological parameters were assessed. Multivariable Cox regression models were applied to determine the influence of parameters on disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 3,751 patients of the study group were male patients (60.2 %), who were significantly younger at diagnosis and received more frequently NSS than women. Significantly, more often high-grade tumors and simultaneous metastasis were present in men. Whereas tumor size and pTN stages did not differ between genders, clear-cell and chromophobe RCC was diagnosed less frequently, but papillary RCC more often in men. Gender also independently influenced DSS (HR 0.75, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.80, p < 0.001) with a benefit for women. However, inclusion of gender in multivariable models did not significantly gain predictive accuracies (PA) for DSS (0.868-0.870, p = 0.628) and OS (0.775-0.777, p = 0.522). Furthermore, no significantly different DSS and OS rates were found in patients undergoing NSS. Conclusions: This study demonstrates important gender differences in clinicopathological features and outcome of RCC patients with improved DSS and OS for women compared to men, even if solely patients with clear-cell RCC or M0-stage are taken into evaluation. However, inclusion of gender in multivariable models does not significantly gain PA of multivariable models. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
    corecore