Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:49:24.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Evaluation of Internet Websites Provided by Radiotherapy Departments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2007

Emma King
Emma King*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England, Glenside Campus, Bristol, UK
*
Correspondence to: Emma King, Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Horfield Road, Bristol BS2 8ED, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The research identifies and evaluates the content and readability of Websites of all radiotherapy departments that provide a Website. As more patients are being referred for radiotherapy treatment each year, the information needs of the public on this subject is growing. Fifty-two per cent of radiotherapy departments within the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were identified as providing a Website. These Websites were evaluated, over a period of 2 weeks, using an adapted Website evaluation tool. Five criteria – content, authority, navigation, design and technical aspects – were identified as important aspects of a Website. For each criterion a number of statements were listed and using a Likert scale were marked. Flesch–Kincaid readability tests were used to analyse the readability level of the Websites. Data analysis resulted in the ranking of the Websites. Evaluation scores varied greatly and the readability tests showed 92% of the Websites were written at a level too high for the public. This shows the varying quality of radiotherapy department Websites with scores ranging from 48 to 115, and the varying readability level of these Websites. The research makes suggestions for the improvement of radiotherapy department Websites including the provision of a dedicated Website team within the department, educated in Website design.

Keywords

EvaluationInternetradiotherapy departments
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 111 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Department of Health. The NHS Cancer Plan. 2000. http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4009609&chk=n4LXTU (last accessed 12 January 2005).Google Scholar
Imaginis 2004. http://www.imaginis.com/radiotherapy (last accessed 20 December 2004).Google Scholar
Bui, LL, Last, L, Bradley, H, Law, CHL, Maier, B-A, Smith, AJ.Interest and participation in support group programs among patients with colorectal cancer. Cancer Nurs 2002; 25: 150–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CancerBACUP2005. http://www.cancerbacup.org.uk/Aboutus/History/Briefhistory/1995 (last accessed 15 February 2005).Google Scholar
Department of Health. NHS Modernisation Agency. Cancer Services Collaborative. 2003. http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4005110&chk=R62M9z (last accessed 03 February 2005).Google Scholar
Neufield, KR, Degner, LF, Dick, JAM.A nursing intervention strategy to foster patient involvement in treatment decisions. Oncol Nurs Forum 1993; 20: 631–635.Google Scholar
Coulter, A, Entwistle, V, Gilbert, D.Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? Br Med J 1999; 318: 318–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, A, Unigwe, S, Elwyn, G, Hood, K. Personalised risk communication for informed decision-making about entering screening programs. The Cochrane Library 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health. The Patients Charter. 1991. Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Dodd, MJ, Ahmed, N.Preference for type of information in cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Cancer Nurs 1987; 10: 244–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bottomley, A, Jones, L.Breast cancer care: women’s experiences. Euro J Cancer Care 1997; 6: 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahraus, D, Sokolosky, S, Thurston, N, Guo, D.Evaluation of an education program for patients with breast cancer receiving radiation therapy. Cancer Nurs 2002; 25: 266–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Haese, S, Vinh-Hung, V, Bijdekerke, P, Spinnoy, M, De Beukeleer, M, Lochie, N, De Roover, P, Storme, G.The effect of timing of the provision of information on Anxiety and Satisfaction of Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy. J Cancer Educ 2000; 15: 223–227.Google ScholarPubMed
Suominen, T. How do nurses assess the information received by breast cancer patients? J Adv Nurs 1993; 18: 64–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vignos, PJ, Parker, WT, Thompson, HM.Evaluation of a clinic education program for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1976; 3: 155–165.Google ScholarPubMed
Dunkelman, H.Patients knowledge of their condition and treatment, how it might be improved. Br Med J 1979; 2: 311–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caughey, D.Patient communication and effective rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1989; 16: 5–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Webb, PA.Health Promotion and Patient Education. London: Chapman and Hall, 1994: 64–66.Google Scholar
Hinds, C, Streater, A, Mood, D.Perceived informational needs of breast cancer patients receiving radiation therapy after excisional biopsy and axillary node dissection. Cancer Nurs 1995; 16: 449–455.Google Scholar
Cortis, JD, Lacey, AE.Measuring the quantity and quality of information giving to in-patients. J Adv Nurs 1996; 17: 667–671.Google Scholar
Hope, S, Williams, AE, Lunn, D.Information provision to cancer patients: a practical example of identifying the need for changes in practice from Dorset Cancer Center. Euro J Cancer Care 2000; 9: 238–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luker, KA, Bever, K, Leinster, SJ, Owens, RG.Information needs and sources of information for women with breast cancer: a follow-up study. J Adv Nurs 1996; 23: 487–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, M, Fretz, P.Patient Use of the Internet for Information in a Lung Cancer Clinic. Chest 2002; 123: 452–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. “Consumer Health and Medical Information on the Internet” Supply and Demand. 1997. http://erg.findsvp.com/health/mktginfo.htmlNew York: Find/SVP, 1996.Google Scholar
Pastore, M. CyberAtlas: Onlinehealth consumers more proactive about healthcare. 2001. http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/healthcare/article.php/755471 (last accessed 12 January 2005).Google Scholar
Ademiluyi, G, Rees, C, Sheard, C.Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 50: 151–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oermann, MH, Gerich, J, Ostosh, L, Zaleski, S.Evaluation of asthma websites for patient and parent education. J Paediatric Nurs 2003; 18: 389–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadad, AR, Gagliardi, A.Rating health information on the internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA 1998; 279: 611–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Health Information Technology Institute. Criteria for Assessing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. 1999. http://mitrek.org/publications/hiti/policy.pdf (last accessed 12 January 2005).Google Scholar
Davis, B.Tell them like it is. Nurs Mirror 1982; 84: 26–28.Google Scholar
Arthur, VAM.Written patient information: a review of the literature. J Adv Nurs 1995; 21: 1081–1086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Audit Commission, 1993. What seems to be the matter? Communication between hospitals and patients. London. HMSO.Google Scholar
Flesch, RR.A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948; 32: 221–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kozol, J.Where Stands the Republic? Illiteracy: A Warning and a Challenge to the Nation’s Press. Atlanta: Cox Enterprises, 1986: 128–129.Google Scholar
Ley, P, Florio, T.The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol, Health Med 1996; 1: 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caspi, A, Block, J, Block, JH, Klopp, B, Lynam, DE, Stouthamer-Loeber, M.A common language version of the California Child Q-set for personality assessment. Psychol Assess 1992; 4: 512–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schinka, JA, Borum, R.Readability of adult psychopathology inventories. Psychol Assess 1993; 5: 384–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oermann, MH, Wilson, F.Quality of Care Information for Consumers on the Internet. J Nurs Care Qual 2000; 14: 45–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albert, T, Chadwick, S.How readable are practice leaflets? Br Med J 1992; 305: 1266–1268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petterson, T.How readable are the hospital information leaflets available to elderly patients? Age Ageing 1994; 23: 14–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Priestly, KA, Campbell, C, Valentine, CB, Denison, DM, Puller, NP.Are patient consent forms easy to read? Br Med J 1992; 305: 1263–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, D, Peterson, M.An Evaluation of the quality and contents of asthma education on the World Wide Web. CHEST 2002; 121: 1301–1307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCall, WA, Crabbs, LM.Standard test lessons in reading. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1925; 1950; 1961.Google Scholar
Sullivan, D. (ed) Nielsen//NetRatings Search Engine Ratings. SearchEngineWatch.com. 2004 http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/netratings.html (last accessed 08 February 2005).Google Scholar
Hulse, P, Hunt, M, White, D. Using information technology (ICT) in careers work. In: NACGT. The Handbook of Career Education and Guidance 1999/2000: a Working Document for Careers Coordinators. Cambridge: Westlake Publishing Ltd, 1999: 32–35.Google Scholar
CancerStats Monograph. CancerStats – Incidence UK 2004. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutcancer/statistics/incidence (last accessed 29 December 2004).Google Scholar
Cabinet Office. 2005. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/resources/domain-name/1-9-2.asp (last accessed 10 February 2005).Google Scholar
Pasching, E, Kaye, AD, Hofbauer, R.The year 2002 a big change in Internet domain names. Online PubMed 2002; 3: 4–9.Google Scholar
Cancer Research Campaign UK, 2004. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutcancer/statistics/incidence (last accessed 29 December 2004).Google Scholar
Stoop, AP, Van't Riet, A, Berg, M.Using information technology for patient education: Realizing surplus value? Patient Educ Couns 2004; 54: 187–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wapenaar, H, Roling, NG, Van den Ban, AW.Handbook on Patient Information. Amsterdam: Boom Meppel, 1989; 12.Google Scholar