Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Formative Research
Date Submitted: Feb 23, 2021
Open Peer Review Period: Feb 22, 2021 - Apr 19, 2021
Date Accepted: Jan 18, 2022
Date Submitted to PubMed: Apr 18, 2022
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
The quality of internet information on psychosis treatment for Australian people
ABSTRACT
Background:
The internet is increasingly seen as an important source of health information for consumers and their families. Accessing information related to their illness and treatment enables consumers to more confidently discuss their health and treatments with their doctors, but the abundance of readily available information also means can be confusing in terms of how reliable the information to enable consumers, families and clinicians to participate in the decision-making process of their care.
Objective:
The current study aimed to rate the quality of websites with psychosis-related information (using a validated instrument (DISCERN) and purpose-developed Psychosis Website Quality Checklist (PWQC) to assess quality over time and aid professionals in directing consumers to the best available information.
Methods:
Entering search terms ‘psychotic’, ‘psychosis’, ‘schizophrenia’, ‘delusion’, ‘hallucination’ into the search engine Google (www.google.com.au) provided 25 websites evaluated by DISCERN and PWQC at two time points, January-March 2014, and January-March 2018, by three diverse health professionals.
Results:
Only the six highest ranked achieved DISCERN scores indicating “good” quality. The overall mean scores of websites were 43.96 (SD=12.08) indicating “fair” quality. PWQC ratings were high on “availability and usability” but poor on “credibility,” “currency,” and “breadth and accuracy”, with no substantial improvement quality over time. Having an editorial/ review process (56% of websites) was significantly associated with higher quality scores on both scales.
Conclusions:
The quality of available information was ‘fair’ and had not significantly improved over time. While higher-quality websites exist, there is no easy way to assess this on face value. Having a readily identifiable editorial/review process was one indicator of website quality. Clinical Trial: Not applicable
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.