|
Authors: Parahoo Kader AU: McCaughan Eilis AU: Noyes Jane AU: McDonough Suzanne
Bottom Line:
This is a protocol for a systematic review and there is no abstract.
Publication details:
The objectives are: To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer, at all stages of the disease, and in particular to increase knowledge, self-efficacy, and quality of life, and to reduce uncertainty, distress and depression. Outcome measures: Knowledge, distress, uncertainty, depression, self-efficacy, and quality of life will be measured regardless of the variety of tools used in these studies.
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:
- The content has been checked.
- The page was added to the database on 26 July 2010.
- The page some relevant references.
- It is clear who has produced this website
- The methodology used is stated
Usability comments:
- The format is clear and appropriate for the audience.
- The website does not conform to web accessibility standards
- Search facility could be improved
Scoring
Reliability
| Item |
Score |
| Is it clear who has developed the web site and what their objectives are? |
3 |
| There is a brief description on the homepage about what CRD do, and there is an About Us section. |
| Does the site report a robust quality control procedure? |
3 |
| CRD state their methodology used to produce their reviews and the DARE database. |
| Is the page content checked by an expert? |
3 |
| The content has been checked. |
| Is the page updated regularly? |
3 |
| The page was added to the database on 26 July 2010. |
| Does the page cite relevant sources where appropriate? |
2 |
| The page some relevant references. |
Usability
| Item |
Score |
| Is the site accessible without a login? |
3 |
| No registration required. |
| Does the site conform to web Accessibility standards? |
0 |
| Lida score 87% |
| Is the site design clear and transparent? |
1 |
| The homepage is uncluttered but the small font size of the main menu lets it down. The menu headings may not be clearly understood by users. Knowledge of who CRD is, is required to use this site best. |
| Is the site design consistent from one page to another? |
2 |
| The design is mostly consistent except that the font size changes quite a bit from readable to unreadable! |
| Can users find what they need on the site? |
1 |
| It is possible to browse CRD's publications by topic, although a health topic menu on the homepage would be better. There is a search box, results are displayed reasonable well, but it is unclear how they are ranked. Users need to know to search the databases separately to find additional relevant information for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer doesn't appear in their site map either. |
| Is the format of information clear and appropriate for the audience? |
3 |
| The format is clear and appropriate for the audience. |
| Weighted total (Usability + (Reliability x 2)): |
38 |
We score each question out of three where:
| 0 |
= Never or Can't tell |
| 1 |
= Sometimes or partly |
| 2 |
= Mostly |
| 3 |
= Always |
|
The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer: a systematic review
