Abstract
Aim: The aim was to examine the quality of online patient information resources for patients considering parastomal hernia treatment.
Methods: A Google search was conducted using lay search terms for patient facing sources on parastomal hernia. The quality of the content was assessed using the validated DISCERN instrument. Readability of written content was established using the Flesch–Kincaid score. Sources were also assessed against the essential content and process standards from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) framework for shared decision making support tools. Content analysis was also undertaken to explore what the sources covered and to identify any commonalities across the content.
Results: Fourteen sources were identified and assessed using the identified tools. The mean Flesch–Kincaid reading ease score was 43.61, suggesting that the information was difficult to read. The overall quality of the identified sources was low based on the pooled analysis of the DISCERN and Flesch–Kincaid scores, and when assessed against the criteria in the NICE standards framework for shared decision making tools. Content analysis identified eight categories encompassing 59 codes, which highlighted considerable variation between sources.
Conclusions: The current information available to patients considering parastomal hernia treatment is of low quality and often does not contain enough information on treatment options for patients to be able to make an informed decision about the best treatment for them. There is a need for high-quality information, ideally co-produced with patients, to provide patients with the necessary information to allow them to make informed decisions about their treatment options when faced with a symptomatic parastomal hernia.
Methods: A Google search was conducted using lay search terms for patient facing sources on parastomal hernia. The quality of the content was assessed using the validated DISCERN instrument. Readability of written content was established using the Flesch–Kincaid score. Sources were also assessed against the essential content and process standards from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) framework for shared decision making support tools. Content analysis was also undertaken to explore what the sources covered and to identify any commonalities across the content.
Results: Fourteen sources were identified and assessed using the identified tools. The mean Flesch–Kincaid reading ease score was 43.61, suggesting that the information was difficult to read. The overall quality of the identified sources was low based on the pooled analysis of the DISCERN and Flesch–Kincaid scores, and when assessed against the criteria in the NICE standards framework for shared decision making tools. Content analysis identified eight categories encompassing 59 codes, which highlighted considerable variation between sources.
Conclusions: The current information available to patients considering parastomal hernia treatment is of low quality and often does not contain enough information on treatment options for patients to be able to make an informed decision about the best treatment for them. There is a need for high-quality information, ideally co-produced with patients, to provide patients with the necessary information to allow them to make informed decisions about their treatment options when faced with a symptomatic parastomal hernia.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-14 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Colorectal Disease |
| Early online date | 1 Apr 2024 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 1 Apr 2024 |
Bibliographical note
Funding information:This work was supported by a PhD grant from Bowel Research UK. Award/Grant number is not applicable. The funder has not had any input into the design or delivery of this study.
Keywords
- parastomal hernia
- patient information
- shared decision making