Quality of Patient Information Websites About Congenital Heart Defects : Mixed-Methods Study of Perspectives Among Individuals With Experience of a Prenatal Diagnosis

Background: When a heart defect is prenatally diagnosed in the fetus, expectant parents experience a great need for information about various topics. After the diagnosis, the Web is used for supplemental information, and the scarcity of research calls attention to the need to explore patient information websites from the perspectives of the intended consumers. Objective: The overarching aim of this study was to explore the quality of Swedish patient information websites about congenital heart defects, from the perspectives of individuals with experience of a prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defect in the fetus. Methods: This was a mixed-methods study of websites identified through systematic searches in the two most used Web-based search engines. Of the total 80 screened hits, 10 hits led to patient information websites about congenital heart defects. A quality assessment tool inspired by a previous study was used to evaluate each website’s appearance, details, relevance, suitability, information about treatment choices, and overall quality. Answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1, representing the lowest score, to 5, representing the highest score. Each website was assessed individually by persons with experience of continued (n=4) and terminated (n=5) pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis. Assessments were analyzed with Kendall’s coefficient of concordance W, Mann-Whitney U test, Friedman’s test, and a Wilcoxon-Nemenyi-McDonald-Thompson test. In addition, each assessor submitted written responses to open-ended questions in the quality assessment tool, and two joint focus group discussions were conducted with each group of assessors. The qualitative data were analyzed with inductive manifest content analysis. Results: Assessments represented a low score (median=2.0) for treatment choices and moderate scores (median=3.0) for appearance, details, relevance, suitability, and overall quality. No website had a median of the highest achievable score for any of the questions in the quality assessment tool. Medians of the lowest achievable score were found in questions about treatment choices (n=4 websites), details (n=2 websites), suitability (n=1 website), and overall quality (n=1 website). Websites had significantly different scores for appearance (P=.01), details (P