Health information quality on the internet in gynecological oncology: a multilingual evaluation

Background: Oncological internet information quality is considered variable, but no comprehensive analysis of gynecological malignancies exists. The present authors' objectives were to compare the quality of common malignancy websites and to assess for language or disease differences; and secondly, to perform a quality comparison between medical and layperson terminology. Materials and Methods: World Health Organization (WHO) Health on the Net (HON) principles may be applied to websites using an automated toolbar function. Using a search engine (www.Google.com) 8,400 websites were assessed using keywords 'endometrial, 'uterine', 'cervical', 'ovarian', 'vaginal', 'vulvar', plus 'cancer', in English, French, German, and Spanish; repeated for alternate terms e.g. 'cervix', 'womb'. Results: Searches for 'vaginal' 'uterine', 'cervical', and 'endometrial' each returned millions of websites. The total percentage of all assessed HON-accredited sites was notably low across all search terms (median 15%; range 3-19%). Significant differences by malignancy type (p < 0.0001), language (p < 0.0001), and tertiles (thirds) of the first 150 websites returned (p < 0.0001). French language had most accredited websites. Using alternate terms demonstrated significant differences (p < 0.001) in accredited websites for most gynecological cancers. Conclusions: Internet data on gynecological malignancies is overwhelming. Further, a lack of validation of the majority of gynecological oncologic sites should be appreciated with discrepancies in quality and number of websites across diseases, languages, and also between medical and layperson terms. Physicians should encourage and more importantly their professional bodies should participate in the development of informative, ethical, and reliable health websites on the internet and direct patients to them.

Gynecology; Neoplasms; Internet; Patient education; Women.

[1] Menon A.M., Deshpande A.D., Perri M. 3rd., Zinkhan G.M.: “Trust in online prescription drug information among internet users: the impact on information search behavior after exposure to direct-toconsumer advertising”. Health Mark Q., 2002, 20, 17.

[2] Zaid T., Burzawa J., Basen-Engquist K., Bodurka D.C., Ramondetta L.M., Brown J., Frumovitz M.: “Use of social media to conduct a cross-sectional epidemiologic and quality of life survey of patients with neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: a feasibility study”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2014, 132, 149.

[3] Pew Internet & American Life Project: “Internet adoption over time. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2012. Available at: http://pewinternetorg/Reports/2012/Digital-differences/Main-Report/Internet-adoption-over-timeaspx

[4] Fox S.: “The social life of health information”. Pew Internet & American Life Project Washington, DC, 2011. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Social_Life_of_Health_Info.pdf

[5] McKeown M.J.: “Use of the Internet for obstetricians and gynecologists”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1997, 176, 271.

[6] Smith S.N., Chizen D., Agrawal A.: “Coping with cancer: examining the supports available to women with gynecologic cancer at saskatoon cancer center”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2015, 25, 174.

[7] Kaimal A.J., Cheng Y.W., Bryant A.S., Norton M.E., Shaffer B.L., Caughey A.B.: “Google obstetrics: who is educating our patients?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2008, 198, 682 e1.

[8] Lawrentschuk N., Abouassaly R., Hackett N., Groll R., Fleshner N.E.: “Health information quality on the internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation”. Urology, 2009, 74, 1058.

[9] Lawrentschuk N., Sasges D., Tasevski R., Abouassaly R., Scott A.M., Davis I.D.: “Oncology health information quality on the Internet: a multilingual evaluation”. Ann Surg Oncol., 2012, 19, 706.

[10] Schiavone M.B., Kuo E.C., Naumann R.W., Burke W.M., Lewin S.N., Neugut A.I., et al.: “The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2012, 207, 174 e1.

[11] Mirkin J.N., Lowrance W.T., Feifer A.H., Mulhall J.P., Eastham J.E., Elkin E.B.: “Direct-to-consumer Internet promotion of robotic prostatectomy exhibits varying quality of information”. Health Aff. (Millwood), 2012, 31, 760.

[12] Babamiri K., Nassab R.S.: “The availability and content analysis of melanoma information on YouTube”. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 2010, 126, 51e.

[13] Menon M., Bhandari M.: “Unhappy patients: musings of two surgical nihilists”. Eur. Urol., 2008, 54, 723.

[14] Petersen C.: “How to trust information on the Internet”. Medical Forum International, 2003, 8: 1.

[15] Berland G.K., Elliott M.N., Morales L.S., Algazy J.I., Kravitz R.L., Broder M.S., et al.: “Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA, 2001, 285, 2612.

[16] Alkhateeb S., Lawrentschuk N.: “Consumerism and its impact on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy”. BJU Int., 2011, 108, 1874.

[17] Chem E., Manecksha R., Abouassaly R., Lawrentschuk N.: “Health information quality on the internet for benign prostatic hyperplasia and its treatment: a multilingual evaluation”. Prostate Int., 2014, 2, 161.

[18] Health on the Net Foundation: “HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) for medical and health”. Available at: http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/

[19] Eysenbach G., Kohler C.: “How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focusgroups, usability tests, and in- depth interviews”. BMJ, 2002, 324, 573.

[20] Gaudinat A., Grabar N., Boyer C.: “Machine learning approach for automatic quality criteria detection of health web pages”. Stud. Health Technol. Inform., 2007, 129, 705.

[21] Trottier G., Roobol M.J., Lawrentschuk N., Boström P.J., Fernandes K.A., Finelli A., et al.: “Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort. BJU Int., 2011, 108, E237.

[22] McCarroll M.L., Armbruster S.D., Chung J.E., Kim J., McKenzie A., von Gruenigen V.E.: “Health care and social media platforms inhospitals”. Health Commun., 2014, 29, 947.

[23] Lee S.J., Yun H.J., Lee K.H., Kim C.J., Park J.S.: “What questions do people ask on a human papillomavirus website? A comparative analysis of public and private questions”. Int. J. Med. Sci., 2012, 9, 142.

[24] Buzi R.S., Smith P.B., Barrera C.: “Talk with Tiff: teen's inquiries to a sexual health website”. J. Sex. Marital Ther., 2015, 41, 126.

[25] Vaidakis D., Panoskaltsis T., Poulakaki N., Kouloura A., Kassanos D., Papadimitriou G., Salamalekis E.: “Female sexuality after female cancer treatment: a clinical issue”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2014, 35, 635.

[26] Fleisher L., Kandadai V., Keenan E., Miller S.M., Devarajan K., Ruth K.J., et al.: “Build it, and will they come? Unexpected findings from a study on a Web-based intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening”. J. Health Commun., 2012, 17, 41.

[27] Avraham S., Machtinger R., Cahan T., Sokolov A., Racowsky C., Seidman D.S.: “What is the quality of information on social oocyte cryopreservation provided by websites of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology member fertility clinics?” Fertil. Steril., 2014, 101, 222.

[28] Patel P.R., Berenson A.B.: “The internet's role in HPV vaccine education”. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother., 2014, 10, 1166.

[29] Pavlik E.J., Hoff J., Woolum D., Liang Y., Wijers C., Schwartz M., et al.: “Metrics of the gynecologic oncology literature focused on cited utilization and costs”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2014, 132, 423.