Quality and Health Literacy Demand of Online Heart Failure Information.
Maan Isabella Cajita, Tamar Rodney, Jingzhi Xu and 2 others
PMID 26938508WHAT IT FOUND
Online heart failure information was rated fair quality, but its average reading level was grade 12.6, above the recommended grade 7 or below, and actionability was low (34.7%).
Government and top-traffic sites had some better scores, but not consistently.
Key findings
01The 46 websites had mean DISCERN quality 46.0 ± 8.9, mean readability 12.6 ± 2.7 grade level, and mean actionability 34.7% ± 28.7.
02Government-sponsored websites had the highest mean quality (50.7 ± 5.8) and lowest mean reading level (10.2 ± 1.2), but the quality difference was not significant after correction.
03Top-ranked websites had significantly higher mean quality than bottom-ranked websites (52.4 ± 4.6 vs 40.9 ± 9.4; P=0.003).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The websites were all in English, with most produced in the USA and UK, so the findings may not apply to sites in other languages. The websites were collected between May 28 and June 3, 2015, and they may have changed since then. Inter-rater agreement was moderate for DISCERN quality and PEMAT understandability. The study assessed website content, not whether patients understood or acted on it.
Declared interests
No conflicts of interest were declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that government-sponsored or top-traffic websites are proven better for patients. Government quality was not significant after correction, and top-traffic sites were better only for quality, not readability, understandability, or actionability.