Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:27:56.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Searching the web: a survey on the quality of advice on postnatal sequelae of intrauterine growth restriction and the implication of developmental origins of health and disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2017

S. Perzel ,
H. Huebner ,
W. Rascher ,
C. Menendez-Castro ,
A. Hartner  and
F. B. Fahlbusch
S. Perzel
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
H. Huebner
Affiliation:
Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
W. Rascher
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
C. Menendez-Castro
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
A. Hartner
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
F. B. Fahlbusch
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and fetal growth restriction (FGR) are pregnancy complications associated with morbidity in later life. Despite a growing body of evidence from current research on developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD), little information is currently provided to parents on long-term metabolic, cardiovascular and neurologic consequences. As parents strongly rely on internet-based health-related information, we examined the quality of information on IUGR/FGR sequelae and DOHaD in webpages used by laypersons. Simulating non-clinicians experience, we entered the terms ‘IUGR consequences’ and ‘FGR consequences’ into Google and Yahoo search engines. The quality of the top search-hits was analyzed with regard to the certification through the Health On the Net Foundation (HON), currentness of cited references, while reliability of information and DOHaD-related consequences were assessed via the DISCERN Plus score (DPS). Overall the citation status was not up-to-date and only a few websites were HON-certified. The results of our analysis showed a dichotomy between the growing body of evidence regarding IUGR/FGR-related sequelae and lack of current guidelines, leaving parents without clear directions. Furthermore, detailed information on the concept of DOHaD is not provided. These findings emphasize the responsibility of the individual physician for providing advice on IUGR/FGR-related sequelae, monitoring and follow-up.

Keywords

consequencesDISCERN Plus scoreDOHaDFGRHONcode, IUGRsequelae
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease , Volume 8 , Issue 5: Themed Issue: Australian Perspectives: Outcomes from the 2016 ANZ , October 2017 , pp. 604 - 612
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and the International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Barker, DJ, Osmond, C. Infant mortality, childhood nutrition, and ischaemic heart disease in England and Wales. Lancet. 1986; 1, 1077–1081.Google Scholar
2. Wadhwa, PD, Buss, C, Entringer, S, Swanson, JM. Developmental origins of health and disease: brief history of the approach and current focus on epigenetic mechanisms. Semin Reprod Med. 2009; 27, 358–368.Google Scholar
3. Cosmi, E, Fanelli, T, Visentin, S, Trevisanuto, D, Zanardo, V. Consequences in infants that were intrauterine growth restricted. J Pregnancy. 2011; 2011, 364381.Google Scholar
4. Williams, TC, Drake, AJ. What a general paediatrician needs to know about early life programming. Arch Dis Child. 2015; 100, 1058–1063.Google Scholar
5. Barker, DJ. The origins of the developmental origins theory. J Intern Med. 2007; 261, 412–417.Google Scholar
6. Godfrey, KM, Costello, PM, Lillycrop, KA. The developmental environment, epigenetic biomarkers and long-term health. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2015; 6, 399–406.Google Scholar
7. Godfrey, KM, Inskip, HM, Hanson, MA. The long-term effects of prenatal development on growth and metabolism. Semin Reprod Med. 2011; 29, 257–265.Google Scholar
8. Mandy, G, Weisman, L, Kim, M. Infants with fetal (intrauterine) growth restriction. Retrieved 6 December 2016 from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/infants-with-fetal-intrauterine-growth-restriction#H440406701 Google Scholar
9. Doetsch J, Zepp F. Fetale Programmierung und frühkindliche Prägung. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd. 2016; 164, 89–90.Google Scholar
10. Fioretti, BT, Reiter, M, Betran, AP, Torloni, MR. Googling caesarean section: a survey on the quality of the information available on the Internet. BJOG. 2015; 122, 731–739.Google Scholar
11. Handfield, B, Turnbull, S, Bell, RJ. What do obstetricians think about media influences on their patients? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006; 46, 379–383.Google Scholar
12. Lagan, B, Sinclair, M, Kernohan, WG. Pregnancy problems: answers on the internet? RCM Midwives. 2007; 10, 276–278.Google Scholar
13. Sayakhot, P, Carolan-Olah, M. Internet use by pregnant women seeking pregnancy-related information: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16, 65.Google Scholar
14. Moyer, CA, Vishnu, LO, Sonnad, SS. Providing health information to women. The role of magazines. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001; 17, 137–145.Google Scholar
15. Lagan, BM, Sinclair, M, Kernohan, WG. What is the impact of the Internet on decision-making in pregnancy? A global study. Birth. 2011; 38, 336–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Wainstein, BK, Sterling-Levis, K, Baker, SA, Taitz, J, Brydon, M. Use of the internet by parents of paediatric patients. J Paediatr Child Health. 2006; 42, 528–532.Google Scholar
17. Khoo, K, Bolt, P, Babl, FE, Jury, S, Goldman, RD. Health information seeking by parents in the Internet age. J Paediatr Child Health. 2008; 44, 419–423.Google Scholar
18. Tuffrey, C, Finlay, F. Use of the internet by parents of paediatric outpatients. Arch Dis Child. 2002; 87, 534–536.Google Scholar
19. Ofcom Adults’ Media Use and Attitudes Report 2015. Retrieved 30 November 2016 from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/82112/2015_adults_media_use_and_attitudes_report.pdf.Google Scholar
20. Office for National Statistics. Statistical bulletin: internet users in the UK, 2016. Retrieved 30 November 2016 from https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/itandinternetindustry/bulletins/internetusers/2016.Google Scholar
21. Rainey, L. Internet, broadband and cell phone statistics: the Pew Internet and American Life Center, 2010. Retrieved 14 February 2017 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/01/05/internet-broadband-and-cell-phone-statistics/.Google Scholar
22. Hesse, BW, Nelson, DE, Kreps, GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165, 2618–2624.Google Scholar
23. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences 2003; National Assessment of Adult Literacy. America’s Health Literacy: why we need accessible health information. Retrieved 14 February 2017 from https://health.gov/communication/literacy/issuebrief/.Google Scholar
24. Kaicker, J, Debono, VB, Dang, W, Buckley, N, Thabane, L. Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument. BMC Med. 2010; 8, 59.Google Scholar
25. Cline, RJ, Haynes, KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001; 16, 671–692.Google Scholar
26. Hargrave, D, Bartels, U, Lau, L, Esquembre, C, Bouffet, E. Quality of childhood brain tumour information on the internet in French language. Bull Cancer. 2003; 90, 650–655.Google Scholar
27. Sacchetti, P, Zvara, P, Plante, MK. The internet and patient education – resources and their reliability: focus on a select urologic topic. Urology. 1999; 53, 1117–1120.Google Scholar
28. Scullard, P, Peacock, C, Davies, P. Googling children’s health: reliability of medical advice on the internet. Arch Dis Child. 2010; 95, 580–582.Google Scholar
29. eBizMBA Inc. Top 15 Most Popular Search Engines, 2016. Retrieved 30 November 2016 from http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/search-engines.Google Scholar
30. Sim, NZ, Kitteringham, L, Spitz, L, et al. Information on the world wide web – how useful is it for parents? J Pediatr Surg. 2007; 42, 305–312.Google Scholar
31. Giustini, D. How Google is changing medicine. BMJ. 2005; 331, 1487–1488.Google Scholar
32. Gagliardi, A, Jadad, AR. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ. 2002; 324, 569–573.Google Scholar
33. Health on the Net Foundation. The HON code of conduct for medical and health websites (HONcode). Retrieved 30 November 2016 from http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html Google Scholar
34. Fast, AM, Deibert, CM, Hruby, GW, Glassberg, KI. Evaluating the quality of Internet health resources in pediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol. 2013; 9, 151–156.Google Scholar
35. Charnock, D, Shepperd, S, Needham, G, Gann, R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1999; 53, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Wasserman, M, Baxter, NN, Rosen, B, Burnstein, M, Halverson, AL. Systematic review of internet patient information on colorectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014; 57, 64–69.Google Scholar
37. Charnock, D, Shepperd, S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res. 2004; 19, 440–446.Google Scholar
38. Haile, T. What you think you know about the web is wrong, 2014. Retrieved 30 November 2016 from http://time.com/12933/what-you-think-you-know-about-the-web-is-wrong/ Google Scholar
39. Gurel Koybasi, NA, Cagiltay, K. Finding online health-related information: usability issues of health portals. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012; 180, 848–852.Google Scholar
40. Hargrave, DR, Hargrave, UA, Bouffet, E. Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro Oncol. 2006; 8, 175–182.Google Scholar
41. Kramer, MS. Socioeconomic determinants of intrauterine growth retardation. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998; 52(Suppl. 1), S29–S32, discussion S32—S33.Google Scholar
42. Hendrix, N, Berghella, V. Non-placental causes of intrauterine growth restriction. Semin Perinatol. 2008; 32, 161–165.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Perzel supplementary material

Table S1

Download Perzel supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 7.3 KB