Search

Introduction The Internet represents the central communication medium in higher education. University applicants, students, teachers and scientists use the Internet when seeking information on medicine. The homepages of dental schools are not just sources of information, but also a means of presenting the school. No comparative studies have been undertaken concerning the content and extent of their Internet sites so far. Methods Based on the literature and assessments of medical school websites, 136 criteria were defined within the setting of a Delphi procedure and drawn upon for a standardised evaluation of the websites of all 30 German dental schools. Structure and extent of the content of the websites were evaluated. Possible influencing factors, such as financial resources and number of applicants, were investigated. Results The results yielded by the homepages varied considerably. The best Internet site received 84% of the possible points, the poorest 38%. On average, 62% of the criteria were fulfilled. Influencing factors, such as the amount of funding by the particular state government, could not be detected. Two-thirds of the dental schools addressed students, three-fourth teachers and scientists as target groups. More than 50% did not address applicants. Specific requirements regarding barrier-free accessibility of information were hardly met. Conclusions Individual faculties already have homepages of a high quality; for others, there is a need for improvement. General recommendations for university websites should be discussed at the European level to ensure a uniform standard of quality. The criteria presented here offer faculties the possibility to reflect upon their own Internet sites.

Background While much discussion has been placed on the problem of poor compliance in the treatment of schizophrenia, there has been little discussion on the concordance between patients and psychiatrists, an important contributing factor to patient-centred care. Objective To estimate the concordance between patients’ and psychiatrists’ (ordinal and cardinal) valuations of multiple goals for schizophrenia treatment and to illustrate the utility of the self-explicated method in valuing a large number of treatment goals. Design Twenty treatment goals were identified during focus groups and literature review and were presented to patients and psychiatrists during structured interviews. Respondents were asked to rank the multiple treatment goals and rate them on a 5-point Likert scale. Three scores were calculated based on the ranking (1–20), rating (Likert scale) (1–5) and a self-explicated method estimated as the product of rating and ranking score (1–100). Concordance was tested using Spearman’s rho for overall ordinal rankings and via anova and F-test for the cardinal values assigned to a specific treatment goal. Participants A total of 105 outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia and 160 psychiatrists in Germany. Results Patient and psychiatrist values were concordant when the ordinal properties of their valuations were assessed by rating (ρ = 0.63; P = 0.002), ranking (ρ = 0.51; P = 0.02) and self-explicated methods (ρ = 0.54; P = 0.01). Significant discordances were found when comparing the cardinal value placed on any given treatment goal using all three approaches, but the self-explicated method produced a more discerning statistic. Relative to patients, psychiatrists significantly (P