Search

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/resprot.7425.]., (©Svenja Litzkendorf, Tobias Hartz, Jens Göbel, Holger Storf, Frédéric Pauer, Ana Babac, Verena Lührs, Leena Bruckner-Tuderman, Franziska Schauer, Jörg Schmidtke, Lisa Biehl, TOF Wagner, J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg, Martin Frank. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 19.09.2018.)

Background: Recently, public and political interest has focused on people living with rare diseases and their health concerns. Due to the large number of different types of rare diseases and the sizable number of patients, taking action to improve the life of those affected is gaining importance. In 2013, the federal government of Germany adopted a national action plan for rare diseases, including the call to establish a central information portal on rare diseases (Zentrales Informationsportal über seltene Erkrankungen, ZIPSE)., Objective: The objective of this study, therefore, was to conduct scientific research on how such a portal must be designed to meet the needs of patients, their families, and medical professionals, and to provide high-quality information for information seekers., Methods: We chose a 3-step procedure to develop a needs-based prototype of a central information portal. In the first step, we determined the information needs of patients with rare diseases, their relatives, and health care professionals by means of qualitative interviews and their content-analytical evaluation. On the basis of this, we developed the basic structure of the portal. In the second step, we identified quality criteria for websites on rare diseases to ensure that the information linked with ZIPSE meets the quality demands. Therefore, we gathered existing criteria catalogs and discussed them in an expert workshop. In the third step, we implemented and tested the developed prototypical information portal., Results: A portal page was configured and made accessible on the Web. The structure of ZIPSE was based on the findings from 108 qualitative interviews with patients, their relatives, and health care professionals, through which numerous information needs were identified. We placed particularly important areas of information, such as symptoms, therapy, research, and advisory services, on the start page. Moreover, we defined 13 quality criteria, referring to factors such as author information, creation date, and privacy, enabling links with high-quality information. Moreover, 19 users tested all the developed routines based on usability and comprehensibility. Subsequently, we improved the visual presentation of search results and other important search functions., Conclusions: The implemented information portal, ZIPSE, provides high-quality information on rare diseases from a central point of access. By integrating the targeted groups as well as different experts on medical information during the construction, the website can assure an improved search for information for users. ZIPSE can also serve as a model for other Web-based information systems in the field of rare diseases., Registered Report Identifier: RR1-10.2196/7425., (©Svenja Litzkendorf, Tobias Hartz, Jens Göbel, Holger Storf, Frédéric Pauer, Ana Babac, Verena Lührs, Leena Bruckner-Tuderman, Franziska Schauer, Jörg Schmidtke, Lisa Biehl, TOF Wagner, J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg, Martin Frank. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 11.05.2018.)

Background: Rare diseases are, by definition, very serious and chronic diseases with a high negative impact on quality of life. Approximately 350 million people worldwide live with rare diseases. The resulting high disease burden triggers health information search, but helpful, high-quality, and up-to-date information is often hard to find. Therefore, the improvement of health information provision has been integrated in many national plans for rare diseases, discussing the telephone as one access option. In this context, this study examines the need for a telephone service offering information for people affected by rare diseases, their relatives, and physicians., Methods: In total, 107 individuals participated in a qualitative interview study conducted in Germany. Sixty-eight individuals suffering from a rare disease or related to somebody with rare diseases and 39 health care professionals took part. Individual interviews were conducted using a standardized semi-structured questionnaire. Interviews were analysed using the qualitative content analysis, triangulating patients, relatives, and health care professionals. The fulfilment of qualitative data processing standards has been controlled for., Results: Out of 68 patients and relatives and 39 physicians, 52 and 18, respectively, advocated for the establishment of a rare diseases telephone service. Interviewees expected a helpline to include expert staffing, personal contact, good availability, low technical barriers, medical and psychosocial topics of counselling, guidance in reducing information chaos, and referrals. Health care professionals highlighted the importance of medical topics of counselling-in particular, differential diagnostics-and referrals., Conclusions: Therefore, the need for a national rare diseases helpline was confirmed in this study. Due to limited financial resources, existing offers should be adapted in a stepwise procedure in accordance with the identified attributes.

Background: Despite diverging definitions on rare conditions, people suffering from rare diseases share similar difficulties. A lack of experience by health professionals, a long wait from first symptoms to diagnosis, scarce medical and scientific knowledge, and unsatisfactory treatment options all trigger the search for health information by patients, family members, and physicians. Examining and systematically integrating stakeholder needs can help design information platforms that effectively support this search., Objective: The aim of this study was to innovate on the group decision-making process involving patients, family members, and physicians for the establishment of a national rare disease Internet platform. We determined differences in the relevance of health information-especially examining quantifiable preference weights-between these subgroups and elucidated the structure and distribution of these differences in people suffering from rare diseases, their family members, and physicians, thus providing information crucial to their collaboration., Methods: The included items were identified using a systematic Internet research and verified through a qualitative interview study. The identified major information needs included medical issues, research, social help offers, and current events. These categories further comprised sublevels of diagnosis, therapy, general disease pattern, current studies, study results, registers, psychosocial counseling, self-help, and sociolegal advice. The analytic hierarchy process was selected as the group decision-making tool. A sensitivity analysis was used to determine the stability and distribution of results. t tests were utilized to examine the results' significance., Results: A total of 176 questionnaires were collected; we excluded some questionnaires in line with our chosen consistency level of 0.2. Ultimately, 120 patients, 24 family members, and 32 physicians participated in the study (48 men and 128 women, mean age=48 years, age range=17-87 years). Rankings and preference weights were highly heterogeneous. Global ranking positions of patients, family members, and physicians are shown in parentheses, as follows: medical issues (3/4, 4, 4), research (3/4, 2/3, 3), social help offers (1, 2/3, 2), and current events (2, 1, 1); diagnosis (6, 8, 9), therapy (5, 9, 7), general disease pattern (9, 4/5/6, 6), current studies (7, 4/5/6, 3), study results (8, 7, 8), registers (4, 1, 5), psychosocial counseling (1, 2, 4), self-help (3, 3, 2), and sociolegal advice (2, 4/5/6, 1). Differences were verified for patients for 5 information categories (P=.03), physicians for 6 information categories (P=.03), and family members for 4 information categories (P=.04)., Conclusions: Our results offer a clear-cut information structure that can transparently translate group decisions into practice. Furthermore, we found different preference structures for rare disease information among patients, family members, and physicians. Some websites already address differences in comprehension between those subgroups. Similar to pharmaceutical companies, health information providers on rare diseases should also acknowledge different information needs to improve the accessibility of information., (©Ana Babac, Svenja Litzkendorf, Katharina Schmidt, Frédéric Pauer, Kathrin Damm, Martin Frank, Johann-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (http://www.i-jmr.org/), 20.11.2017.)

Background: The importance of the Internet as a medium for publishing and sharing health and medical information has increased considerably during the last decade. Nonetheless, comprehensive knowledge and information are scarce and difficult to find, especially for rare diseases. Additionally, the quality of health or medical information about rare diseases is frequently difficult to assess for the patients and their family members., Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the quality of information on the Internet about rare diseases. Additionally, the study aims to evaluate if the quality of information on rare diseases varies between different information supplier categories., Methods: A total of 13 quality criteria for websites providing medical information about rare diseases were transferred to a self-disclosure questionnaire. Identified providers of information on the Internet about rare diseases were invited to fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions about the information provider in general (eg, supplier category, information category, language, use of quality certificates, and target group) and about quality aspects that reflect the 13 quality criteria. Differences in subgroup analyses were performed using t tests., Results: We identified 693 websites containing information about rare diseases. A total of 123 questionnaires (17.7%) were completely filled out by the information suppliers. For the remaining identified suppliers (570/693, 82.3%), the questionnaires were filled out by the authors based on the information available on their website. In many cases, the quality of websites was proportionally low. Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the quality of information provided by support group/patient organization compared to medical institution (P=.19). The quality of information by individuals (patient/relative) was significantly lower compared to information provided by support group/patient organization (P=.001), medical institution (P=.009), and other associations and sponsoring bodies (P=.001) as well., Conclusions: Overall, the quality of information on the Internet about rare diseases is low. Quality certificates are rarely used and important quality criteria are often not fulfilled completely. Additionally, some information categories are underrepresented (eg, information about psychosocial counseling, social-legal advice, and family planning). Nevertheless, due to the high amount of information provided by support groups, this study shows that these are extremely valuable sources of information for patients suffering from a rare disease and their relatives., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (©Frédéric Pauer, Svenja Litzkendorf, Jens Göbel, Holger Storf, Jan Zeidler, Johann-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 18.01.2017.)

Background: Identifying patient priorities and preference measurements have gained importance as patients claim a more active role in health care decision making. Due to the variety of existing methods, it is challenging to define an appropriate method for each decision problem. This study demonstrates the impact of the non-standardized Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method on priorities, and compares it with Best-Worst-Scaling (BWS) and ranking card methods., Methods: We investigated AHP results for different Consistency Ratio (CR) thresholds, aggregation methods, and sensitivity analyses. We also compared criteria rankings of AHP with BWS and ranking cards results by Kendall's tau b., Results: The sample for our decision analysis consisted of 39 patients with rare diseases and mean age of 53.82 years. The mean weights of the two groups of CR ≤ 0.1 and CR ≤ 0.2 did not differ significantly. For the aggregation by individual priority (AIP) method, the CR was higher than for aggregation by individual judgment (AIJ). In contrast, the weights of AIJ were similar compared to AIP, but some criteria's rankings differed. Weights aggregated by geometric mean, median, and mean showed deviating results and rank reversals. Sensitivity analyses showed instable rankings. Moderate to high correlations between the rankings resulting from AHP and BWS., Limitations: Limitations were the small sample size and the heterogeneity of the patients with different rare diseases., Conclusion: In the AHP method, the number of included patients is associated with the threshold of the CR and choice of the aggregation method, whereas both directions of influence could be demonstrated. Therefore, it is important to implement standards for the AHP method. The choice of method should depend on the trade-off between the burden for participants and possibilities for analyses.

Background: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is increasingly used to measure patient priorities. Studies have shown that there are several different approaches to data acquisition and data aggregation. The aim of this study was to measure the information needs of patients having a rare disease and to analyze the effects of these different AHP approaches. The ranking of information needs is then used to display information categories on a web-based information portal about rare diseases according to the patient's priorities., Methods: The information needs of patients suffering from rare diseases were identified by an Internet research study and a preliminary qualitative study. Hence, we designed a three-level hierarchy containing 13 criteria. For data acquisition, the differences in outcomes were investigated using individual versus group judgements separately. Furthermore, we analyzed the different effects when using the median and arithmetic and geometric means for data aggregation. A consistency ratio ≤0.2 was determined to represent an acceptable consistency level., Results: Forty individual and three group judgements were collected from patients suffering from a rare disease and their close relatives. The consistency ratio of 31 individual and three group judgements was acceptable and thus these judgements were included in the study. To a large extent, the local ranks for individual and group judgements were similar. Interestingly, group judgements were in a significantly smaller range than individual judgements. According to our data, the ranks of the criteria differed slightly according to the data aggregation method used., Conclusions: It is important to explain and justify the choice of an appropriate method for data acquisition because response behaviors differ according to the method. We conclude that researchers should select a suitable method based on the thematic perspective or investigated topics in the study. Because the arithmetic mean is very vulnerable to outliers, the geometric mean and the median seem to be acceptable alternatives for data aggregation. Overall, using the AHP to identify patient priorities and enhance the user-friendliness of information websites offers an important contribution to medical informatics.

Background: The European Union considers diseases to be rare when they affect less than 5 in 10,000 people. It is estimated that there are between 5000 and 8000 different rare diseases. Consistent with this diversity, the quality of information available on the Web varies considerably. Thus, quality criteria for websites about rare diseases are needed., Objective: The objective of this study was to generate a catalog of quality criteria suitable for rare diseases., Methods: First, relevant certificates and quality recommendations for health information websites were identified through a comprehensive Web search. Second, all considered quality criteria of each certification program and catalog were examined, extracted into an overview table, and analyzed by thematic content. Finally, an interdisciplinary expert group verified the relevant quality criteria., Results: We identified 9 quality certificates and criteria catalogs for health information websites with 304 single criteria items. Through this, we aggregated 163 various quality criteria, each assigned to one of the following categories: thematic, technical, service, content, and legal. Finally, a consensus about 13 quality criteria for websites offering medical information on rare diseases was determined. Of these categories, 4 (data protection concept, imprint, creation and updating date, and possibility to contact the website provider) were identified as being the most important for publishing medical information about rare diseases., Conclusions: The large number of different quality criteria appearing within a relatively small number of criteria catalogs shows that the opinion of what is important in the quality of health information differs. In addition, to define useful quality criteria for websites about rare diseases, which are an essential source of information for many patients, a trade-off is necessary between the high standard of quality criteria for health information websites in general and the limited provision of information about some rare diseases. Finally, transparently presented quality assessments can help people to find reliable information and to assess its quality., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared.