SOURCE: McBride JA, Carson CC, Coward RM. Int J Impot Res 2017;29:110-114.
The availability of information at the touch of a finger has become a mixed blessing. Clinicians applaud patients’ efforts to become more involved and informed about their health, but are chagrined about the frequency with which transmission of misinformation occurs.
McBride et al performed a review of websites offering information on hypogonadism by searching the terms “testosterone,” “testosterone therapy,” and “hypogonadism.” Then, the authors performed a quality review on the information supplied by the top 25 websites listed. To keep the subject matter within the most commonly addressed bounds that would be expected to provide relevant information, advertising sites, clinical practice guidelines, and pharmaceutical company websites were omitted. Information was rated for readability (e.g., was the reading level appropriate for most adults), credibility (e.g., who authored the information, references, physician-confirmed medical accuracy, and currency), and quality (e.g., were there links to other educational resources, and were risks as well as benefits appropriately disclosed). Based on their “internet biopsy,” the authors reached an unfortunate conclusion: Information online was of poor quality and of a complexity level beyond the comprehension of the average patient. Clinicians may have to take a role in directing patients toward high-quality online information.
Clinicians may have to take a role in directing patients toward high-quality online information.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content. TESTING
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content