Credibility, accuracy and readability of patient-oriented information about low back pain on Brazilian websites: a mixed-method review
Credibilidade, acurácia e legibilidade das informações orientadas ao paciente sobre dor lombar em sites brasileiros: uma revisão de método misto
Thamires Prazeres Alonso; Raiany Pires dos Santos; Igor Macedo Tavares Correia; Leandro Alberto Calazans Nogueira; Ney Meziat Filho; Felipe José Jandre Reis
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Low-quality online health-related content may lead to ineffective or harmful decision-making from patients related to their healthcare. The aim of this study was to evaluate the credibility, accuracy and readability of web-based content on Brazilian websites.
METHODS: This is a mixed-method review with exploratory sequential design. Google was selected as the search engine for retrieving web-information about low back pain (LBP) in Brazilian websites. We assessed the URL on three domains: credibility, accuracy, and readability. Qualitative analysis of each URL was performed in three steps: (1) organization into thematic units; (2) data exploration; and (3) interpretation of the data and summarization.
RESULTS: Credibility was assessed in 135 URLs, 72 (53%) URLs had no authorship, 119 (88%) did not mention the sources of their information, none presented a declaration of conflict of interest or the declared source of funding, 76 (56%) URLs present the date of creation. Accuracy was assessed in 121 URLs and none fully adhered to the guidelines. Readability was assessed in 128 and texts were classified as “very easy” or “easy” to read. Five main themes emerged in the qualitative analysis: (1) Explanations and causes for low back pain, (2) diagnosis, (3) recommendation about treatment, (4) recommendation for coping and self-management, and (5) lifestyle factors.
CONCLUSION: Content analysis of web-based searches on the Brazilian Portuguese language demonstrated low credibility standards, mostly inaccurate information, and moderate-high readability levels about low back pain.
Keywords
Resumo
JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: O conteúdo on-line relacionado à saúde quando apresenta baixa qualidade pode levar a tomadas de decisão ineficazes ou prejudiciais por parte dos pacientes. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a credibilidade, acurácia e legibilidade do conteúdo em sites brasileiros.
MÉTODOS: Esta é uma revisão de método misto com design sequencial exploratório. O Google foi selecionado como o mecanismo de busca para recuperar informações da web sobre dor lombar em sites brasileiros. Avaliamos os URL em três domínios: credibilidade, acurácia e legibilidade. A análise qualitativa de cada URL foi realizada em três etapas: (1) organização em unidades temáticas; (2) exploração de dados; e (3) interpretação dos dados e resumo.
RESULTADOS: A credibilidade foi avaliada em 135 URLs, 72 (53%) URLs não tinham autoria, 119 (88%) não mencionavam as fontes de suas informações, nenhuma apresentava declaração de conflito de interesse ou fonte de financiamento declarada, 76 (56%) URLs apresentam a data de criação. A acurácia foi avaliada em 121 URLs e nenhuma aderiu totalmente às diretrizes. A legibilidade foi avaliada em 128 e os textos foram classificados como “muito fáceis” ou “fáceis” de ler. Cinco temas principais emergiram na análise qualitativa: (1) Explicações e causas da dor lombar, (2) diagnóstico, (3) recomendação sobre tratamento, (4) recomendação para enfrentamento e autogerenciamento e (5) fatores de estilo de vida.
CONCLUSÃO: A análise de conteúdo de pesquisas baseadas na web, no idioma português do Brasil, demonstrou baixos padrões de credibilidade, acurácia e níveis moderados a altos de legibilidade sobre a dor lombar.
Palavras-chave
Referências
1 Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi M, Abbasifard M. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204-22. Erratum in: Lancet. 2020;396(10262):1562.
2 da C Menezes Costa L, Maher CG, Hancock MJ, McAuley JH, Herbert RD, Costa LO. The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2012;184(11):E613-24.
3 Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2618-24.
4 Kim R, Kim H, Jeon B. The good, the bad, and the ugly of medical information on the internet. Mov Disord. 2018;33(5):754-7.
5 McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient–health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1-2):24-8.
6 Maher CG, O’Keeffe M, Buchbinder R, Harris IA. Musculoskeletal healthcare: have we over-egged the pudding? Int J Rheum Dis. 2019;22(11):1957-60.
7 Ferreira G, Traeger AC, Machado G, O’Keeffe M, Maher CG. Credibility, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of internet-based information about low back pain: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(5):e13357.
8 Maia LB, Silva JP, Souza MB, Henschke N, Oliveira VC. Popular videos related to low back pain on YouTubeTM do not reflect current clinical guidelines: a cross-sectional study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2021;25(6):803-10.
9 Santos RP, Alonso TP, Correia IMT, Nogueira LC, Meziat-Filho N, Reis FJJ. Patients should not rely on low back pain information from Brazilian official websites: a mixed-methods review. Braz J Phys Ther. 2022;26(1):100389.
10 Levitt HM, Bamberg M, Creswell J W, Frost DM, Josselson R, Suárez-Orozco C. Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol. 2018;73(1):26-46.
11 Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244-5.
12 Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, Forciea MA. Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(7):514-30.
13 Group TOPLBPW. Evidence-Informed Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain. Edmonton, Canada: Toward Optimized Practice. 2015.
14 O’Connell NE, Cook CE, Wand BM, Ward S P. Clinical guidelines for low back pain: a critical review of consensus and inconsistencies across three major guidelines. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016;30(6):968-80.
15 Martins TBF, Ghiraldelo CM, Nunes MGV, Oliveira Junior ON. Readability formulas applied to textbooks in Brazilian Portuguese. Notas do ICMSC-USP ICMC. 1996. 1-12p.
16 Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: Application, results, and recommendations. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9(5):503-16.
17 Rampin R, Steeves V, DeMott S. Taguette (Version 0.9.2). Zenodo doi. 2020;
18 Butler L, Foster NE. Back pain online: a cross-sectional survey of the quality of web-based information on low back pain. Spine. 2003;28(4):395-401.
19 Li L, Irvin E, Guzmán J, Bombardier C. Surfing for back pain patients: the nature and quality of back pain information on the Internet. Spine. 2001;26(5):545-57.
Submetido em:
09/12/2022
Aceito em:
13/01/2023
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email