Bottom Line:
An overview of treatment choices for prostate cancer
Publication details:
Information is divided into the following topics:
- Prostate cancer that has not spread
- Prostate cancer that has spread
We assessed this page using an appraisal instrument developed by Minervation specifically for this project. This approach is still in development, so you should regard the assessments as a general guide. Click here to find out more, or to let us know how you think the approach could be improved.
Reliability comments:
- No references are provided but there are additional links
- Website content is checked by relevant experts
- It is clear who has developed the website
Usability comments:
- Inconsistent use of subheadings
- Summary tables would be useful
- The page is long
- Confusing use of menus on the website
- The website conforms fully to web accessibility standards
Scoring
Reliability
| Item |
Score |
| Is it clear who has developed the web site and what their objectives are? |
3 |
| There is a short statement on the homepage describing who CancerHelp UK are, and there is a button on the left side menu linking to further information about them. |
| Does the site report a robust quality control procedure? |
2 |
| The site reports a robust quality control procedure. However, the literature search which is undertaken does not include some key bibliographic databases. |
| Is the page content checked by an expert? |
2 |
| The website content is checked by relevant experts. |
| Is the page updated regularly? |
2 |
| The page was last updated on 10th March 2009. |
| Does the page cite relevant sources where appropriate? |
2 |
| No references are provided but there are additional links |
Usability
| Item |
Score |
| Is the site accessible without a login? |
3 |
| No registration required. |
| Does the site conform to web Accessibility standards? |
3 |
| Lida score 100% |
| Is the site design clear and transparent? |
1 |
| The homepage is clearly and simply presented. The contents menu could be expanded to show subheadings under each topic. It is confusing to have two different types of contents menu for each specific cancer topic. It might be better to have a left side menu displaying topic headings. Font size is good throughout the webpages. Colour coding might help split up sections. Breadcrumbs would help users see where they were in the site. |
| Is the site design consistent from one page to another? |
3 |
| Yes, site design is consistent from one page to another. |
| Can users find what they need on the site? |
2 |
| Users can quickly access information relating to specific cancers by choosing the correct link on the homepage. There is a search box and results are displayed clearly. It appears that search results are ranked according to relevance, but how this is decided is unclear. The site map is good, including information for prostate cancer. Users might find it easier browsing for information relating to prostate cancer using this map rather than the contents links. |
| Is the format of information clear and appropriate for the audience? |
1 |
| Inconsistent use of subheadings. Summary tables would be useful. The page is long |
| Weighted total (Usability + (Reliability x 2)): |
35 |
We score each question out of three where:
| 0 |
= Never or Can't tell |
| 1 |
= Sometimes or partly |
| 2 |
= Mostly |
| 3 |
= Always |
|
Treatment options for prostate cancer
