ArticleThe mental health clinician2022
Assessing the understandability, actionability, and quality of online resources for the self-management of bipolar disorder.
Article in The mental health clinician, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Therapeutic Content for Substance Use Disorder Treatment: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- An evaluation of readability and understandability of online education materials for breast cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Article
- Can popular magazines educate people with depression? An investigation of articles' understandability, reliability, and actionability.PEC innovation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aims to assess the understandability, actionability, and quality of online resources for the self-management (SM) of bipolar spectrum disorders in adults.
methodsAn online search using Google, Bing, and Yahoo! search engines was conducted to identify resources for bipolar disorder. Those that were published in English, discussed at least 1 method directed at improving an SM task, and were within the first 25 nonadvertisement results for each search were included. Resources directed specifically at adolescents were excluded. Understandability and actionability of the online resources were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Quality of the online resources was evaluated using the DISCERN instrument. The number of SM tasks each resource discussed was also evaluated. Overall mean appropriateness was calculated by averaging the percentage scores of understandability, actionability, and quality.
resultsFifty-two resources were included. The mean sample scores were 8.4 (SD, 2.1; range, 2-13; maximum, 15) for understandability, 2.2 (SD, 1.2; range, 0-4; maximum, 5) for actionability, and 46.1 (SD, 8.9; range, 30-57; maximum, 75) for quality. The overall mean appropriateness percentage was 53.5% (SD, 11.7%; range, 18%-77%), with a goal of at least 70%. Included resources addressed a mean of 7.1 tasks (SD, 2.5; range, 1-14; maximum, 20). DISCUSSION: Most online resources for the SM of bipolar disorder scored poorly for understandability and actionability based on PEMAT scores and had low to moderate scores for quality using the DISCERN instrument. Future online resources should be designed with the goal of increasing appropriateness for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.