Does the Internet Provide Enough Information About Sepsis for the General Public

Öz

Purpose: To determine the quality and reliability of the information about sepsis on the internet. Material methods: The quality and reliability of the information on the websites accessed through the most frequently searched words about sepsis were evaluated with the JAMA Benchmark Criteria and the DISCERN scoring system. Data accuracy was compared with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Results: The search terms used resulted most frequently (36,5%) in information from private hospitals. Only 4 of the 63 sites related to sepsis search terms met all 4 JAMA criteria. The JAMA Benchmark score was found to be median 21.18 (min:0- max:4). Of the sites, 74,6% showed an update date. Only 31.7% of the sites examined had expert or author information. The mean DISCERN score was calculated as 368.51 (min 16-max 59). According to these results, the quality and reliability of internet-sourced information on sepsis was poor. Discussion: The provision of health information on the internet, mostly by private hospitals, may lead to ethical problems. Missing or erroneous information may delay medical treatment, whereas good quality medical information can be effective in reducing unnecessary medical expenses and hospital admissions. Conclusion: The quality and reliability of information about sepsis and related search terms on the Internet were low. It was concluded that public instutions and academic institutions should play a more active role in providing patients with accurate information.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sepsis
• internet
• information reliability
• Discern score

İnternet Genel Halk için Sepsis Hakkında Yeterli Bilgi Sağlıyor mu?

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı sepsis konusunda internetten elde edilen bilgilerin kalitesi ve güvenilirliği sorgulamaktır Materyal ve Metod: Sepsis ile ilgili en sık aranan kelimeler üzerinden, erişilen web sitelerindeki bilgilerin kalitesi ve güvenilirliği JAMA Benchmark Kriterleri ve DISCERN skorlama sistemi ile değerlendirildi. Verilerin doğruluğu Sepsiste Sağkalım Kampanyası klavuzları ile kıyaslandı. Bulgular: En sık özel hastaneler arama terimleriyle ilgili olarak sonuçlar ekranına geliyordu (% 36.5). Sepsis arama terimiyle ilgili 63 siteden sadece 4'ü 4 JAMA kriterini de karşıladı. Tüm siteler için median JAMA Benchmark skorunun 2±1.18 (min: 0- maks: 4) olduğu bulundu. Güncelleme tarihi mevcut sitelerin oranı % 74.6 idi. Çalışmamızda incelediğimiz sitelerin yalnızca % 31,7'si uzman veya yazar bilgilerine sahipti. DISCERN skoru ortalama 36±8.51 (min 16-maks 59) olarak hesaplandı. Bu sonuçlara göre internet kaynaklı bilgilerin kalitesinin ve güvenilirliğinin zayıf olduğu görülmüştür. Tartışma: Sağlık bilgilerinin çoğunlukla özel hastaneler tarafından internet üzerinden sağlanması etik sorunlara yol açabilir. Eksik veya hatalı bilgiler tıbbi tedaviyi geciktirebilir. Ayrıca kaliteli tıbbi bilgiler, gereksiz tıbbi harcamaları ve hastaneye yatışı azaltmada etkili olabilir. Sonuç: İnternette sepsis ve ilgili arama terimleri hakkındaki bilgilerin kalitesi ve güvenilirliği düşüktü. Kamusal ve akademik kurumların hastalara doğru bilgi sağlamada daha aktif bir rol oynaması gerektiği sonucuna varıldı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sepsis
• internet
• bilgi güvenilirliği
• DISCERN skoru

Kaynakça

1. 1. Ryan C. Computer and Internet Use in the United States. in American Community Survey Reports. 2016; P20-568. Available from: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/acs/ACS-39.pdf (Accessed date: December 27, 2021)
2. 2. Gray NJ, Klein JD, Noyce PR, et al. Health information-seeking behaviour in adolescence: The place of the internet. Soc Sci Med 2005;60(7):1467-1478 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.010.
3. 3. TurkStat. TurkStat, Survey on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage in Households and by Individuals, 2020. Available from: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2020-33679 (Accessed date: December 25, 2021).
4. 4. Fox S. Online Health Search 2006. Pew Research Centre. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2006/10/29/online-health-search-2006/ (Accessed date: December 25, 2021).
5. 5. GS stats. Google Search Engine Market Share in Turkey 2020. Available from: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/turkey (Accessed date: December 25, 2021).
6. 6. Clement J. Global market share of search engines 2010-2020. Statista 2020. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/#statisticContainer (Accessed date: December 25, 2021).
7. 7. Carneiro HA, Mylonakis E. Google trends: A web-based tool for real-time surveillance of disease outbreaks. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49(10):1557-64. https://doi.org/10.1086/630200.
8. 8. Cuan-Baltazar JY, Muñoz-Perez MJ, Robledo-Vega C, et al. COVID- 19 misinformation on the internet: The other epidemy. JMIR Public Heal Surveill 2020;6(2):e18444.

9. 9. Kaicker J, Dang W. Assessing The Quality And Reliability Of Health Information On ERCP Using The DISCERN Instrument. Heal Care Curr Rev 2013;1(1):1-4. https://doi.org/10.4172/hccr.1000104.
10. 10. O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C et al. Cauda equina syndrome: Assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39(10):e645-49. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000282.
11. 11. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Crit Care Med 2017;45(3):e486-552. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255.
12. 12. Zülfikar H. The Internet Usage Behaviour and Access Patterns of the Patients to the Health Information on the Internet. Florence Nightingale Hemşirelik Derg 2014;22(1):46-52. https://doi.org/10.17672/fnhd.33085.
13. 13. Bass SB, Ruzek SB, Gordon TF, et al. Relationship of internet health information use with patient behavior and self-efficacy: Experiences of newly diagnosed cancer patients who contact the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Information Service. J Health Commun 2006;11(2):219-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500526794.
14. 14. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA - J Am Med Assoc 2016;315(8):801-810. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287.
15. 15. Küçükdurmaz F, Aytekin MN, Tuncay I, Şen C. A Pılot Study About Qualıty of Informatıon At Health Related In Turkısh Web Sıtes: Menıscus Tear. Nobel Med 2013;9(2):114-117.
16. 16. Greene DL, Appel AJ, Reinert SE, Palumbo MA. Lumbar disc herniation: Evaluation of information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30(7):826-829. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000157754.98023.cd.
17. 17. Eysenbach G. The Impact of the Internet on Cancer Outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53(6):356-371. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.53.6.356.
18. 18. Wanless D. Securing our Future Health Taking a Long-Term View. Summary of consultation responses. First Press, London United kingdom; The Public Enquiry Unit Press 2002;148-149.
19. 19. Barlow JH, Stapley J, Ellard DR, Gilchrist M. Information and self-management needs of people living with bleeding disorders: A survey. Haemophilia 2007;13(3):264-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2007.01444.x.
20. 20. Can AB, Sönmez E, Özer F, et al. A research on internet use as health seeking behavior. Cumhur Med J 2014;36(4):486-494. https://doi.org/10.7197/cmj.v36i4.5000066422.
21. 21. Canbek İ, Rakip Ü, Yıldızhan S, et al. The quality and the reliability of internet information in lumbar disc herniation. Medicine Science 2021;10(3):902-4. doi: 10.5455/medscience.2021.01.025