Poster Presentations

Start Date

20-5-2014 12:30 PM

Description

Objective: To evaluate the quality of information presented on English-language websites regarding treatment options for POP and SUI using a validated instrument. Methods: Utilizing the International Urogynecology Association list of continence societies worldwide, faculty nomination and a complementary Google search using the terms “professional organizations stress urinary incontinence / pelvic organ prolapse” English-language, patient-focused websites related to POP and SUI were identified. The websites were evaluated by faculty at an academic medical center, including 4 faculty members of the urogynecology division, 2 urogynecology fellows, 3 urologists, and 1 obstetrician gynecologist. The websites were independently evaluated using the validated DISCERN instrument assessing the reliability and quality of consumer health information.Results: From the IUGA continence societies worldwide list, 47 websites were identified. Five provided patient information in English. Eight additional websites were identified from the Google search or provider nomination. One website provided information only for POP (rectocele), 5 for SUI, and 7 for both. The lowest mean total score for any website was 38.7 and the highest mean total score was 61.5 across all the websites. There were no statistically significant differences in the website mean total scores (p value <0.40 for POP and 0.14 for SUI). For websites covering both topics, POP scores were generally higher than SUI scores, but not statistically significantly different (p value<3.75). The overall quality item scores were also not significantly different (SUI: p<0.923; POP: p <0.813). Missing information most commonly included lack of clear objectives, sources, and information related to the expected outcome of no intervention.Conclusions: Available English-language professional websites written to inform patients about management choices for SUI and POP miss key components of quality patient information.

Comments

Abstract of poster presented at the 2014 UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science Research Retreat, held on May 20, 2014 at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Mass.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

 
May 20th, 12:30 PM

Patient-focused Websites Related to Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a DISCERN Quality Analysis

Objective: To evaluate the quality of information presented on English-language websites regarding treatment options for POP and SUI using a validated instrument. Methods: Utilizing the International Urogynecology Association list of continence societies worldwide, faculty nomination and a complementary Google search using the terms “professional organizations stress urinary incontinence / pelvic organ prolapse” English-language, patient-focused websites related to POP and SUI were identified. The websites were evaluated by faculty at an academic medical center, including 4 faculty members of the urogynecology division, 2 urogynecology fellows, 3 urologists, and 1 obstetrician gynecologist. The websites were independently evaluated using the validated DISCERN instrument assessing the reliability and quality of consumer health information.Results: From the IUGA continence societies worldwide list, 47 websites were identified. Five provided patient information in English. Eight additional websites were identified from the Google search or provider nomination. One website provided information only for POP (rectocele), 5 for SUI, and 7 for both. The lowest mean total score for any website was 38.7 and the highest mean total score was 61.5 across all the websites. There were no statistically significant differences in the website mean total scores (p value <0.40 for POP and 0.14 for SUI). For websites covering both topics, POP scores were generally higher than SUI scores, but not statistically significantly different (p value<3.75). The overall quality item scores were also not significantly different (SUI: p<0.923; POP: p <0.813). Missing information most commonly included lack of clear objectives, sources, and information related to the expected outcome of no intervention.Conclusions: Available English-language professional websites written to inform patients about management choices for SUI and POP miss key components of quality patient information.

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.