Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 22;6(1):e7. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.7822

Table 1.

Overall results of the included websites according to the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) Instrument.

Data Item Criteria Yes, n (%) No, n (%) Does not
apply, n (%)
Content data





1 Initial definition of which subjects will be covered 43 (36.4) 75 (63.6) 0 (0)

2 Coverage of the previously defined subjects (NAaif the answer is “no” for item 1) 43 (36.4) 75 (63.6) 0 (0)

3 Description of the medical problem 115 (97.5) 3 (2.5) 0 (0)

4 Definition of the purpose of the surgical intervention 103 (87.3) 15 (12.7) 0 (0)

5 Description of treatment alternatives 86 (72.9) 32 (27.1) 0 (0)

6 Description of the sequence of the surgical procedure 59 (50.0) 59 (50.0) 0 (0)

7 Description of the qualitative benefits to the recipient 58 (49.2) 60 (50.8) 0 (0)

8 Description of the quantitative benefits to the recipient 11 (9.3) 107 (90.7) 0 (0)

9 Description of the qualitative risks and side effects 66 (55.9) 52 (44.1) 0 (0)

10 Description of the quantitative risks and side effects 23 (19.5) 95 (80.5) 0 (0)

11 Addressing quality-of-life issues 64 (54.2) 54 (45.8) 0 (0)

12 Description of how complications are handled 10 (8.5) 108 (91.5) 0 (0)

13 Description of the precautions that the patient may take 25 (21.2) 93 (78.8) 0 (0)

14 Mention of alert signs that the patient may detect 20 (16.9) 98 (83.1) 0 (0)

15 Addressing medical intervention costs and insurance issues 9 (7.6) 109 (92.4) 0 (0)

16 Specific contact details for hospital services 48 (40.7) 70 (59.3) 0 (0)

17 Specific details of other sources of reliable
information or support
47 (39.8) 71 (60.2) 0 (0)

18 Coverage of all relevant issues for the topic (summary item for all content criteria) 0 (0) 118 (100) 0 (0)
Identification data





19 Date of issue or revision 52 (44.1) 66 (55.9) 0 (0)

20 Logo of the issuing body 111 (94.1) 7 (5.9) 0 (0)

21 Names of the persons or entities that produced the
document
37 (31.4) 81 (68.6) 0 (0)

22 Names of the persons or entities that financed the
document
1 (0.8) 117 (99.2) 0 (0)

23 Short bibliography of the evidence-based data used in the document 37 (31.4) 81 (68.6) 0 (0)

24 Statement about whether and how patients were involved or consulted in the document’s production 51 (43.2) 67 (56.8) 0 (0)
Structure data





25 Use of everyday language and explanation of complex words or jargon 111 (94.1) 7 (5.9) 0 (0)

26 Use of generic names for all medications or products (NA if no medications described) 35 (29.7) 83 (70.3) 0 (0)

27 Use of short sentences (<15 words on average) 109 (92.4) 9 (7.6) 0 (0)

28 Personal address to the reader 33 (28.0) 85 (72.0) 0 (0)

29 Respectful tone 118 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0)

30 Clear information (no ambiguities or contradictions) 116 (98.3) 2 (1.7) 0 (0)

31 Balanced information on risks and benefits 16 (13.6) 102 (86.4) 0 (0)

32 Presentation of information in a logical order 115 (97.5) 3 (2.5) 0 (0)

33 Satisfactory design and layout (excluding figures or graphs) 91 (77.1) 27 (22.9) 0 (0)

34 Clear and relevant figures or graphs (NA if absent) 21 (17.8) 97 (82.2) 0 (0)

35 Inclusion of a named space for the reader’s note or
questions
3 (2.5) 115 (97.5) 0 (0)

36 Inclusion of a printed consent form contrary to
recommendations (NA if not from hospitals)
2 (1.7) 116 (98.3) 0 (0)

aNA: not applicable.