To assess the quality, understandability, actionability, and comprehensiveness of online resources for patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma, highlighting the importance of reliable information in patient education.
Key Findings:
Mean quality score (DISCERN) was 3.62, with no significant differences across affiliations or search positions, indicating a generally low quality of information.
35 out of 37 websites achieved an understandability score above 70% (Mean 78.38%), suggesting good clarity but varying quality.
14 websites exceeded the actionability threshold (Mean 57.66%), indicating a need for more actionable content.
Readability averaged a 10th–12th grade level (Mean 51.88), which is above the recommended level for patient comprehension.
Mean comprehensiveness was 62.98%, with limited content on post-treatment complications or surveillance, highlighting gaps in patient education.
Interpretation:
Most online resources for gastric cancer provided understandable information but lacked actionability, were written above recommended reading levels, and offered limited long-term management content, which is crucial for patient engagement.
Limitations:
The study only evaluated the top 50 websites from three search engines, which may not represent all available resources, potentially limiting the findings' applicability.
The evaluation was based on subjective scoring by reviewers, which could introduce bias and affect the reliability of the results.
Conclusion:
There is a need for more actionable, readable, and comprehensive online patient education materials for gastric adenocarcinoma, with specific recommendations for content improvement.
