Qualidade da informação sobre cesariana disponível na internet

• Ano de defesa: 2014
• Autor(a) principal: Fioretti, Beatriz Trentini dos Santos [UNIFESP]
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
• Palavras-chave em Português: cesarean section; internet; patient education; prenatal education; physician-patient relations; health literacy; cesárea; educação de pacientes como assunto; educação pré-natal; relações médico-paciente; alfabetização em saúde
• Link de acesso: https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/trabalhoConclusao/viewTrabalhoConclusao.jsf?popup=true&id_trabalho=1958319; https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/46445

Objective: Examine the quality and completeness of information on caesarean section (CS) in Webpages used by laypersons in Portuguese. Methods: This was across-sectional analytical study. The term ?caesarean delivery? and 25 synonyms were entered into the 5 most popular search engines in Brazil (google.com.br; bing.br.com; google.com; br.ask.com e br.search.yahoo.com) using the browser Google Chrome. The first 3 pages of hits were downloaded and assessed for possible inclusion. Freely available Web pages written in Portuguese in a language accessible for lay persons and which presented at least two paragraphs with information on CS were analyzed by two independent investigators using the Discern instrument to assess quality and a content checklist to assess completeness of information on CS. Results: 3900 Webpages were retrieved and 176 fulfilled the selection criteria. The overall average Discern score was 43.6 (+ 8.9 SD), of a maximum score of 75. Overall, 30% of the pages were of very poor or poor quality (total score < 39) and 47% were of regular quality (total score 39-50). Most pages scored low especially in questions related to reliability of the information presented. The most frequently covered topics were indications for CS (80% of Páginas Web), which did not reflect clinical practice, short-term maternal risks (80%) and potential benefits of CS (56%), including maternal and doctor convenience. Less than half of the Páginas Web mentioned perinatal risks and less than one third mentioned longterm maternal risks associated with CS such as uterine rupture (17%) or placenta praevia/accreta (12%) in future pregnancies. Conclusions: The quality and completeness of Web-based resources in Portuguese about CS were poor to regular. Pending improvement of these resources, Brazilian obstetricians should warn their patients about these facts and encourage them to discuss what they have read on the net about CS.