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

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticle

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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalNursing Management
Volume24
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Nov 2017

Fingerprint

Health Literacy
Advance Directives
Internet
Health
Focus Groups
Decision Making
Learning
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Advance directives
  • DISCERN tool
  • end of life decision making
  • evaluation research
  • health literacy
  • nursing management
  • Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool

Cite this

@article{ec2781fd7bde4d7e85ebc5aed678a49b,
title = "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.",
keywords = "Advance directives, DISCERN tool, end of life decision making, evaluation research, health literacy, nursing management, Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool",
author = "Peter Stuart",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "28",
doi = "10.7748/nm.2017.e1675",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
journal = "Nursing Management",
number = "8",

}

Health literacy: a study of internet-based information on advance directives. / Stuart, Peter.

In: Nursing Management, Vol. 24, No. 8, 28.11.2017.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Health literacy: a study of internet-based information on advance directives

AU - Stuart, Peter

PY - 2017/11/28

Y1 - 2017/11/28

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.

AB - 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.

KW - Advance directives

KW - DISCERN tool

KW - end of life decision making

KW - evaluation research

KW - health literacy

KW - nursing management

KW - Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool

U2 - 10.7748/nm.2017.e1675

DO - 10.7748/nm.2017.e1675

M3 - Article

VL - 24

JO - Nursing Management

JF - Nursing Management

IS - 8

ER -