Chamberlain College Of Nursing NR361 Information Syst 938890

Chamberlain College Of Nursingnr361 Information Systems In Healthcar

Develop a PowerPoint guide that assists a patient in evaluating reliable health information websites about their disease or diagnosis. The guide should include four slides: a scenario explaining the patient's background and learning needs; criteria for evaluating website credibility; an example of a suspect website and why it is unreliable; and a credible website with reasons for its trustworthiness.

Paper For Above instruction

The purpose of this paper is to create an educational PowerPoint guide aimed at empowering patients or their families to assess the credibility of online health information sources. This guide is grounded in nursing education principles, emphasizing the importance of providing patients with tools to distinguish trustworthy sources to facilitate informed health decisions. The four-slide presentation serves as a practical resource that nurse educators can share to improve health literacy in the digital age.

Scenario Slide

This slide introduces a specific patient case to contextualize the guide. For example, consider a 54-year-old male, Mr. Jones, recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. His wife, Mrs. Jones, accompanies him to the oncologist’s office. Both have a high school education; Mr. Jones exhibits denial, believing nothing can be done due to a family history. Mrs. Jones shows a keen interest in exploring treatment options and searches online for alternative cures. They seek guidance on how to identify credible health websites. The nurse assessing their learning needs recognizes Mrs. Jones's motivation but also her potential vulnerability to misinformation. The nurse also evaluates Mr. Jones’s readiness to learn and accept evidence-based information, tailoring education accordingly.

Criteria Slide

This slide outlines at least four criteria to evaluate health information websites effectively. These include:

• Authorship and Credentials: Verify who is responsible for the content; authoritative sites are typically authored or reviewed by medical professionals or reputable organizations.
• Source of Funding and Conflicts of Interest: Ensure the site discloses funding sources and lacks commercial bias that could influence information accuracy.
• Date of Information: Check the publication or last update date; current information is essential in healthcare.
• Website Domain and URL: Prefer reputable domains such as .gov, .edu, or .org, which generally indicate credible sources.

These criteria can be formatted as a table or checklist, with simple language suitable for health literacy levels. Citing at least one scholarly source that validates these criteria, such as the American Medical Association's recommendations, enhances credibility.

Suspect Site Slide

For the suspect website, consider a site like http://www.pancreaticcancertruth.com. This fictional site provides sensational claims about miracle cures and unproven treatments, with disclaimers that it is not a medical resource. Based on the criteria, this site is problematic because it lacks clear authorship, dispenses unverified information, and uses a questionable URL. It may also lack recent updates, making its content unreliable. The site’s promotional tone and absence of professional oversight classify it as suspect, illustrating the importance of evaluating such sites before accepting their claims.

Credible Site Slide

The recommended credible website is the American Cancer Society, available at https://www.cancer.org. This site is authored by professional oncologists and cancer experts, maintained by a reputable organization, and provides up-to-date, evidence-based information tailored for the general public. It discloses funding sources and has a professional appearance with a secure URL ending in .org. The site addresses various aspects of pancreatic cancer, including treatment, symptoms, and support resources, making it a trustworthy source for patients and caregivers. Explaining the site's credentials in relation to the established criteria reinforces its credibility.

This guide equips patients like Mrs. Jones with practical skills to discern credible online health resources, fostering health literacy and enabling better health decisions. Nurses play an essential role in guiding patients toward trustworthy information, countering misinformation, and supporting patient engagement in their care journey.

References

• American Medical Association. (2020). Principles for evaluating internet health information. AMA Journal of Ethics, 22(3), 230-236.
• American Cancer Society. (2023). Understanding pancreatic cancer. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreatic-cancer.html
• BBryant, J., & Anderson, D. (2018). Evaluating online health information: Strategies for consumers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(4), e123.
• Gustafson, D., & McTavish, F. (2014). Online health information seeking by consumers: A review. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet, 18(2), 85-102.
• Smith, L., & Wicks, P. (2019). Misinformation in the digital health era. BMJ, 366, l5424.
• National Institutes of Health. (2021). How to evaluate health information on the internet. NIH.gov.
• Hartling, L., et al. (2017). Trustworthy online sources of health information: How to identify them. Evidence-Based Nursing, 20(4), 90-92.
• World Health Organization. (2019). Infodemic management: Cross-sectoral guidance. WHO Publications.
• Hansen, R. N., & Jordan, B. (2022). Improving patient education through digital literacy. Journal of Nursing Education, 61(2), 115-121.
• Johnson, T. M., et al. (2016). Creating effective health education tools for online use. Journal of Medical Education, 90(9), 1125-1130.