Evaluation of quality, readability, suitability, and usefulness of online resources available to cancer survivors

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality, readability, suitability, and usefulness of resources publicly available to adult cancer survivors (aged 18 +) who have completed primary treatment. Methods Resources were identified in July 2021 through Google. Search completeness was verified using Yahoo, Bing, and MedlinePlus. Retrieved resources were assessed for quality using the DISCERN, readability, suitability using the Suitability Assessment Measure (SAM), and usefulness based on a list of unmet needs and self-management skills derived from the literature. Descriptive analyses were conducted, and a cluster analysis identified the highest-scoring resources. Results Forty-five resources were included. The mean DISCERN score was fair at 63.3% (SD 13.7%) with low-rated items being sources, publication date, and risks and mechanisms of treatment. The mean reading grade level was 11.19 (SD 1.61, range 8-16) with only one resource scoring an 8. The mean SAM score was in the adequate range at 48.2% (SD 10.6%), with graphics being the lowest-rated section. On average, included resources addressed 57.7% (SD 27.3%) of the unmet needs and 48.4% (SD 20.9%) of the self-management skills, the least addressed being problem-solving. Conclusion Quality and suitability were fair, whereas readability exceeded recommended levels. Only one resource had a superior score in both quality and suitability. Implications for Cancer Survivors The most pressing need is to develop resources for cancer survivors that address their unmet needs and are accessible in terms of literacy. Study findings outline the highest-scoring resources currently available to survivors, families, and clinicians.

Automated summary

The study evaluated the quality, readability, suitability, and usefulness of publicly available resources for adult cancer survivors who completed primary treatment. The resources were assessed for quality, readability, suitability, and usefulness, and the highest-scoring resources were identified. The findings showed fair quality and suitability, but readability exceeded recommended levels. Only one resource had a superior score in both quality and suitability. The study highlights the need for accessible resources that address the unmet needs of cancer survivors.