249. How Informative is On-Line Health Information: An Evaluation of Websites for Polymyalgia Rheumatica

Abstract

Background: PMR is a common inflammatory rheumatological disorder, frequently managed in primary care. As such, patients may be more likely to search for extra sources of health information via the internet. Studies suggest that patients struggle to understand much of the written health information provided and the readability of health information could be improved to make it more useful for patients. Evaluating online health information is therefore increasingly important. The aim of this project was to evaluate the quality, content and readability of PMR websites. Methods: A search was undertaken of Medline, Embase, Cinahl and Psychinfo to identify potential instruments for evaluating the quality of on-line health information. From this review, a proforma was designed for data extraction incorporating published quality and readability (Flesch Reading Ease and SMOG Readability) indicators. PMR was then searched in the three leading UK search engines (Google, Bing and Yahoo). The first 50 eligible websites from each search engines were evaluated. Websites were excluded if they were videos, chat forums or product advertisements. Websites were evaluated only once if they were identified by more than one search engine. Each website was then assessed for readability, credibility, design and content using the proforma. Results: The search identified 75 unique, eligible websites. 52 (69%) websites were aimed at patients and 23 (30%) were aimed at clinicians. In terms of readability, the mean Flesch Reading Ease score was 39 and SMOG Readability score was 10.5, suggesting that the necessary reading age to understand the websites was at least 16 years (recommended reading age for patient information is 10-12 years). The majority (92%) of websites were accurate and included data on signs and symptoms (90%), investigations and management (96%), but only 26 (34%) included any information on prognosis. In terms of website quality, most used recommended reader friendly formatting and design although the majority did not provide clear information regarding the authorship, accreditation and financial support of the site. Conclusion: Whilst there is a wide range of PMR websites, most have a higher reading age than is recommended for patient information, although the quality and design of the websites was good. Importantly, although the information presented on these sites is generally accurate, its presentation and the breath of content should be reconsidered by website designers with the input of patients, as well as clinicians.