We have located links that may give you full text access.
Characterization and reliability of internet resources on pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with chronic lung disease.
BACKGROUND: Individuals with lung disease commonly use the internet as a source of health information on pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). The objective of this study was to characterize internet resources on PR, and to assess the content, readability, and quality of patient-directed PR resources.
METHODS: The first 200 websites for the search term 'pulmonary rehabilitation resources and exercise' were analyzed on Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Website content was assessed based on 30 key components of PR from the 2013 and 2021 international consensus statements. Website quality was determined using DISCERN, JAMA benchmarks, and Global Quality Scale (GQS).
RESULTS: 66 unique PR websites were identified with the two most common categories being scientific resources (39%) and foundation/advocacy organizations (33%). The average reading level of websites was 11 ± 3. PR content varied significantly across websites (mean range 13.4-21.5). Median DISCERN total score and GQS score were 4 (IQR 3-4) and 3.5 (IQR 2-4), respectively, representing moderate-good quality. Foundation/advocacy websites had higher DISCERN and GQS scores compared to other websites.
CONCLUSION: Foundation/advocacy websites had the highest quality and reliability metrics; however, the higher-than-recommended reading levels may compromise patient comprehension and utilization. This study provides critical insight on the current state of online PR health-related information.
METHODS: The first 200 websites for the search term 'pulmonary rehabilitation resources and exercise' were analyzed on Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Website content was assessed based on 30 key components of PR from the 2013 and 2021 international consensus statements. Website quality was determined using DISCERN, JAMA benchmarks, and Global Quality Scale (GQS).
RESULTS: 66 unique PR websites were identified with the two most common categories being scientific resources (39%) and foundation/advocacy organizations (33%). The average reading level of websites was 11 ± 3. PR content varied significantly across websites (mean range 13.4-21.5). Median DISCERN total score and GQS score were 4 (IQR 3-4) and 3.5 (IQR 2-4), respectively, representing moderate-good quality. Foundation/advocacy websites had higher DISCERN and GQS scores compared to other websites.
CONCLUSION: Foundation/advocacy websites had the highest quality and reliability metrics; however, the higher-than-recommended reading levels may compromise patient comprehension and utilization. This study provides critical insight on the current state of online PR health-related information.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app