The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Descriptive Review of Online Information Resources for People With Stroke: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: People with stroke and their caregivers experience numerous information needs; internet-based resources may offer cost-effective ways to improve access to information about this condition and its management, including the availability of resources and support. The quality of online health information is, therefore, an important consideration for both developers and consumers of these online resources. Objective: This study aims to map and evaluate the content, readability, understandability, design, and quality characteristics of freely available online information resources (ie, websites) that empower people with stroke and their caregivers with information and self-help strategies poststroke. Methods: This descriptive review will follow the five systematic and rigorous methodological steps that are recommended for scoping reviews, which include the following: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting the studies, (4) charting the data, and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Data will then be synthesized and analyzed thematically. Results: As of February 2021, the scoping review is in the data extraction stage. Data will be synthesized, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal in August 2021. In addition, we will develop an accessible summary of the results for stakeholder meetings. Ethical approval is not required for this review, as it will only include publicly available information. Conclusions: This study is novel and will evaluate the typology, content, and design-related criteria, including accessibility, aesthetics, navigability, interactivity, privacy, and data protection, of online information resources for stroke. The review will be limited to online resources published in English. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/23174
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- 10.2196/10440 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1310/JKJK-N2MP-9LQ1-FF2N · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61689-4 · DOI · Paper page
- Tawa, N, 2020, Collaborative Capacity Development to Complement Stroke Rehabilitation in Africa, 3
- 10.1016/j.jns.2017.08.3265 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.046 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.39059.456794.68 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12913-017-2674-5 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecc.12533 · DOI
- 10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub2 · DOI
- 10.1177/0165551512469775 · DOI
- 10.2196/13817 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2008.02.004 · DOI
- 10.1007/s13187-013-0540-7 · DOI
- 10.1017/S104795111900307X · DOI
- Kindig, D, 2004, Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion
- 10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027 · DOI
- 10.2196/jmir.3831 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.11.017 · DOI
- 10.1002/asi.23311 · DOI
- 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · DOI · Paper page
Metadata
- Authors
- Inglis-Jassiem, G., Grimmer, K., Conradie, T., & Louw, Q.
- Affiliations
- Stellenbosch University (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Inglis-Jassiem, Gakeemah
- Venue
- JMIR Research Protocols
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2021-07-13
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e23174
- ISSN
- 1929-0748 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8317032
- OpenAlex
- W3155993713
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 25
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Research Protocols (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Architecture and Usability
- Keywords
- stroke, online health information resources, caregivers, self-help strategies, post-stroke, readability, web design, information quality, accessibility, privacy and data protection, navigability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
