Premium
Consulting D r. G oogle: Quality of Online Resources About Tympanostomy Tube Placement
Author(s) -
Harris Vandra C.,
Links Anne R.,
Hong Paul,
Walsh Jonathan,
Schoo Desi P.,
Tunkel David E.,
Stewart Charles M.,
Boss Emily F.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1002/lary.26824
Subject(s) - readability , inter rater reliability , medicine , health literacy , quality score , medical education , medicaid , literacy , checklist , family medicine , health care , psychology , computer science , operations management , rating scale , engineering , developmental psychology , metric (unit) , economics , cognitive psychology , programming language , economic growth , pedagogy
Objective Tympanostomy tube (TT) placement is common in children; however, family‐centeredness and utility of online information used for decision making and understanding is unknown. We evaluate the quality of leading Internet resources describing TT placement. Study Design Cross‐sectional descriptive design. Methods We performed a Google (Menlo Park, CA) search for terms related to TTs. We defined quality using scaled readability measures (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch‐Kincaid Grade‐Level), understandability and actionability (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool), shared decision‐making centrality (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services informed consent guidelines), and clinical practice guideline (CPG) compatibility. Three reviewers coded each measure. Fleiss κ interrater reliability analysis was performed. Results Ten most frequently encountered websites were analyzed. One of 10 met national health literacy standards (mean 10th‐grade level reading, median 9th, range 6–15th). All sites were understandable (mean understandability 81.9%, range 73%–92%). Most had low actionability scores (7 of 10, median 47%, mean 44.6%, range 0–80). Shared decision‐making centrality was high (mean 5, range 4–6), but most did not list alternative treatment options. Although CPG compatibility was high (mean 3.4, range 1–4), many websites contained inconsistent recommendations about tube duration, follow‐up, and water precautions. There was inter‐rater agreement for understandability scoring (κ = 0.20; P = 0.02). Conclusion Internet resources about TT placement vary in quality pertaining to health literacy, principles of shared decision making, and consistency with practice guidelines. With growing emphasis on patient‐/family‐centered engagement in healthcare decision making, standardization of content and improved usability of educational materials for common surgical procedures in children such as tympanostomy tube placement should be a public health priority. Level of Evidence NA. Laryngoscope , 128:496–501, 2018