| Title |
Quality of information on the Internet—has a decade made a difference?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Irish Journal of Medical Science, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11845-018-1790-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeyanthi Kulasegarah, Kassandra McGregor, Murali Mahadevan |
| Abstract |
While patients accessing the Internet can be a positive step towards health literacy and self-efficacy, these resources vary in quality. In 2007, Kulasegarah et al. assessed the information available to patients on the Internet on three common ENT procedures (tonsillectomy, septoplasty, and myringoplasty), looking at the quality of the information in terms of completeness and accuracy. This is a follow-on study to examine how this information has changed after 10 years. Following a Google search, the top 20 webpages on each of the three ENT procedures, tonsillectomy, septoplasty, and myringoplasty, were analyzed. Webpages gave on average 50.6% of the critical information a patient should know prior to undergoing surgery. This is a drop from 2007 (65.5%). Over 96.8% were found to have no inaccuracies identified on the available information provided on the websites. This was slightly higher than in 2007 (94.7%). YouTube (10%) and hospital webpages (10%) were among the new subcategories that were not present in the 2007 study. Due to the reduced completeness of information available to patients online, it is important that health professionals direct patients to appropriate websites if they wish to do their own research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,554,815
of 23,578,918 outputs
Outputs from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#103
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,554
of 330,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,578,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.