| Sumario: | Background: This research aims to systematically review a comprehensive sample of websites (English‐language) that provide information on nutrition after cancer treatment. Methods: In consultation with cancer survivors and experts, we developed search strings for an internet search (incognito mode in Google Chrome) to be completed in six English‐speaking countries (Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States); the first 10 results were chosen for each search). Websites/web pages were included if the links related to sites/content that provided information on health post‐treatment in English and aimed at adults (aged above 18 years). Several tools were applied to test the quality, readability and usability of the websites/weblinks. Results: Initially, 720 links were found, with 159 eligible for inclusion. Those eligible for review were charity/support/non‐governmental organisation weblinks (49.1%) that originated in the United States (42.8%) and did not specify a particular cancer type (65.4%). One‐third (n = 59, 37.1%) of these links contained nutrition guidance; however, these lacked practical implementation strategies. Most of the websites/web pages were not Health On the Net certified and lacked overall quality, with a mean International Patient Decision Aids Standards score of 20.4/40 and a Journal of the American Medical Association score of 1/4. Readability failed to meet ideal levels. Only 32.5% (n = 13) of the web pages/weblinks met the benchmark for usability. Conclusion: Cancer survivors seeking nutrition information online may encounter difficulty locating advice, and where they do, it is unlikely to contain guidance on implementation into day‐to‐day life. This is concerning, given the important role nutrition can play in cancer survivorship. Key points: Only one‐third of the eligible websites contained any nutrition guidance, and for the most part, they did not contain details and did not include practical strategies for implementation.The majority of the websites/web pages lacked overall quality, with a mean IPDAS score of 20.4/40 and a JAMA score of 1/4. Readability also failed to meet ideal levels.Regarding usability, only 32.5% (n = 13) of the web pages/weblinks met the benchmark for usability (29).We would recommend reliable websites to enhance their search engine optimisation, by incorporating keywords outlined in our search strategies (Supporting Information) as developed by cancer survivors and reflecting typical searches undertaken.These findings have identified areas for improvement in providing online information for cancer survivors and providing guidance for those developing and managing websites with health and cancer‐related content.
|
|---|