Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Sep;177(2):295-305.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05315-8. Epub 2019 Jun 18.

Quality of DCIS information on the internet: a content analysis

Jayden Blackwood  1 , Frances C Wright  2 , Nicole J Look Hong  2 , Anna R Gagliardi  3
Affiliations
Review

Quality of DCIS information on the internet: a content analysis

Jayden Blackwood et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose: Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) experience lingering confusion and anxiety, and may use the Internet for supplemental information. This study assessed the content and quality of DCIS information on the Internet.

Methods: We searched Google for English-language, publicly available DCIS information tools published from 2010 to current by non-profit organizations. We summarized tool characteristics, DCIS labels, and information important to women with DCIS corresponding to domains of a patient-centred care (PCC) framework. Tool quality was appraised with the DISCERN instrument.

Results: Of 39 tools included, most were plain language summaries published since 2016. Tools employed a median of 2.0 labels (range 1.0 to 5.0) for DCIS, most frequently non-invasive breast cancer (29, 74.4%), abnormal cells (14, 35.9%), pre-cancer (14, 35.9%), and early form of breast cancer (13, 33.3%). Tools addressed a median of 4.0 (range 2.0 to 5.0) PCC domains. Few tools contained content in the domains of fostering the relationship (30.8%), addressing emotions (41.0%), or follow-up (41.0%); 74.4% noted the risk of progression or recurrence but provided vague details. Tools were assessed as high (25.6%), moderate (48.7%), and low (25.6%) quality.

Conclusions: Few DCIS information tools available to women on the Internet meet quality criteria for consumer health information or address concerns of importance to women with DCIS. By identifying a range of poorly defined terms used to label DCIS, and specific content domains that were lacking, this study identified how existing tools could be improved, and identified higher-quality tools that clinicians can use when discussing DCIS with patients.

Keywords: Consumer health information; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Information tools; Internet; Patient-centred care; Quality assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Jayden Blackwood declares that he has no conflicts of interest. Frances Wright declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Nicole Look Hong declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Anna Gagliardi declares that she has no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Institute of Medicine . Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2001. - PubMed
    1. Carman KL, Workman TA. Engaging patients and consumers in research evidence: applying the conceptual model of patient and family engagement. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100:25–29. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(4):351–379. doi: 10.1177/1077558712465774. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stewart M, Ryan BL, Bodea C. Is patient-centred care associated with lower diagnostic costs? Healthc Policy. 2011;6(4):27–31. - PMC - PubMed