Prime

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Health literacy: a study of internet-based information on advance directives.

Abstract

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and value of web-based information on advance directives. Internet-based information on advance directives was selected because, if it is inaccurate or difficult to understand, patients risk making decisions about their care that may not be followed in practice.

METHOD

Two validated health information evaluation tools, the Suitability Assessment of Materials and DISCERN, and a focus group were used to assess credibility, user orientation and effectiveness.

FINDINGS

Only one of the 34 internet-based information items on advance directives reviewed fulfilled the study criteria and 30% of the sites were classed as unreadable. In terms of learning and informing, 79% of the sites were considered unsuitable.

CONCLUSION

Using health literacy tools to evaluate internet-based health information highlights that often it is not at a functional literacy level and neither informs nor empowers users to make independent and valid healthcare decisions.

Links

Authors+Show Affiliations

University of Northampton, Faculty of Health and Society, Northampton, England.

Source

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29185293

Citation

TY - JOUR T1 - Health literacy: a study of internet-based information on advance directives. A1 - Stuart,Peter, PY - 2017/10/30/accepted PY - 2017/11/30/entrez PY - 2017/12/1/pubmed PY - 2017/12/1/medline KW - DISCERN tool KW - Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool KW - advance directives KW - end of life decision making KW - evaluation research KW - health literacy KW - nursing management SP - 27 EP - 33 JF - Nursing management (Harrow, London, England : 1994) JO - Nurs Manag (Harrow) VL - 24 IS - 8 N2 - AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and value of web-based information on advance directives. Internet-based information on advance directives was selected because, if it is inaccurate or difficult to understand, patients risk making decisions about their care that may not be followed in practice. METHOD: Two validated health information evaluation tools, the Suitability Assessment of Materials and DISCERN, and a focus group were used to assess credibility, user orientation and effectiveness. FINDINGS: Only one of the 34 internet-based information items on advance directives reviewed fulfilled the study criteria and 30% of the sites were classed as unreadable. In terms of learning and informing, 79% of the sites were considered unsuitable. CONCLUSION: Using health literacy tools to evaluate internet-based health information highlights that often it is not at a functional literacy level and neither informs nor empowers users to make independent and valid healthcare decisions. SN - 1354-5760 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29185293/Health_literacy:_a_study_of_internet-based_information_on_advance_directives. ER -
Unbound Prime app for iOS iPhone iPadUnbound PubMed app for AndroidAlso Available:
Unbound MEDLINE
Unbound PubMed app for WindowsUnbound PubMed app for MAC OSX Yosemite Macbook Air pro