Quality of Web-Based Sickle Cell Disease Resources for Health Care Transition: Website Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescents and young adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) transitioning from pediatric to adult health care face a high-risk period associated with increased use of acute health care services and mortality. Although 59% of American citizens report using the internet for health care information, the quality of web-based, patient-facing resources regarding transition in SCD care has not been evaluated. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of web-based health information on SCD, especially as it pertains to the transition to adulthood for inidividuals with SCD. The study also compared the readability and content scores of websites identified in 2018 to those from 2021 to assess any change in quality over time. Methods: Keywords representing phrases adolescents may use while searching for information on the internet regarding transition in SCD care, including "hydroxyurea" and "SCD transition," were identified. A web-based search using the keywords was conducted in July 2021 using Google, Yahoo, and Bing. The top 20 links from each search were collected. Duplicate websites, academic journals, and websites not related to SCD health care transition were excluded. Websites were categorized based on the source: health department, hospital or private clinician, professional society, and other websites. Websites were assessed using Health On the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FGL), Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), and a novel SCD content checklist (SCDCC). EQIP and SCDCC scores range from 0- to 100. Each website was reviewed by 2 research assistants and assessed for interrater reliability. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: Of the 900 websites collected, 67 (7.4%) met the inclusion criteria: 13 health department, 7 hospital or private clinician, 33 professional society, and 14 other websites. A total of 15 (22%) out of 67 websites had HONcode certification. Websites with HONcode certification had higher FRE and EQIP scores and lower FGL scores than those without HONcode certification, reflecting greater readability. Websites without HONcode certification had higher SCDCC scores, reflecting greater clinical content. Only 7 (10%) websites met the National Institutes of Health recommendation of a seventh-grade or lower reading level. Based on EQIP scores, 6 (9%) websites were of high quality. The mean SCDCC score was 20.60 (SD 22.14) out of 100. The interrater reliability for EQIP and SCDCC ratings was good (intraclass correlation: 0.718 and 0.897, respectively). No source of website scored significantly higher mean EQIP, FRE, FGL, or SCDCC scores than the others (all P<.05). Conclusions: Although seeking health care information on the web is very common, the overall quality of information about transition in SCD care on the internet is poor. Changes to current web-based health care information regarding SCD care transitions would benefit transitioning youth by providing expectations, knowledge, skills, and tools to increase self-efficacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".