BACKGROUND
The internet is increasingly seen as an important source of health information for consumers and their families. Accessing information related to their illness and treatment enables consumers to more confidently discuss their health and treatments with their doctors, but the abundance of readily available information also means can be confusing in terms of how reliable the information to enable consumers, families and clinicians to participate in the decision-making process of their care.
OBJECTIVE
The current study aimed to rate the quality of websites with psychosis-related information (using a validated instrument (DISCERN) and purpose-developed Psychosis Website Quality Checklist (PWQC) to assess quality over time and aid professionals in directing consumers to the best available information.
METHODS
Entering search terms ‘psychotic’, ‘psychosis’, ‘schizophrenia’, ‘delusion’, ‘hallucination’ into the search engine Google (www.google.com.au) provided 25 websites evaluated by DISCERN and PWQC at two time points, January-March 2014, and January-March 2018, by three diverse health professionals.
RESULTS
Only the six highest ranked achieved DISCERN scores indicating “good” quality. The overall mean scores of websites were 43.96 (SD=12.08) indicating “fair” quality. PWQC ratings were high on “availability and usability” but poor on “credibility,” “currency,” and “breadth and accuracy”, with no substantial improvement quality over time. Having an editorial/ review process (56% of websites) was significantly associated with higher quality scores on both scales.
CONCLUSIONS
The quality of available information was ‘fair’ and had not significantly improved over time. While higher-quality websites exist, there is no easy way to assess this on face value. Having a readily identifiable editorial/review process was one indicator of website quality.
CLINICALTRIAL
Not applicable