ArticleBMC health services research2025
The accessibility of general practice websites assessed by patients: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to gather patients' perceptions regarding the accessibility of GP (general practitioner) practice websites in Flanders.
methodsThis is a quantitative cross-section with perceived accessibility as dependent variable and age, readability, clarity, currentness, interactivity and cultural sensitivity as predicting variables. A patient questionnaire was designed for data collection. The study ran from August 2023 until February 2024.
resultsOf the 643 individuals who completed the study, 486 were included for data analysis. 83% (n = 417) found the website accessible; 96.4% (n = 417) found the site readable and 91.1% (380) well-organized. Only 40.3% (n = 417) found the site adapted to a multicultural society. Of those who rated the practice website as insufficiently accessible, there was a significantly larger proportion who found the site insufficiently adapted to a multicultural society (p = 0.000293), insufficiently well-organized (p = < 0.00001;) or insufficiently readable (p = 0.00016).
conclusionMost respondents found the website accessible, readable and well-organized. There are notable shortcomings in cultural sensitivity, currentness and interactivity. Areas for improvement include incorporating symbols, language options, displaying update date and the use of paragraphs, bold or colored words. In a study conducted in Flanders, most patients found healthcare websites easy to access, read, and navigate. However, the study highlighted significant gaps in cultural inclusivity, with only 40% of patients feeling the websites catered to a multicultural audience. Additionally, the websites lacked up-to-date content and interactive features. The study recommends improving user experience by incorporating multilingual options, clearly displaying update dates, and using visually distinct text elements such as symbols and colored words.
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.