ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Evaluating the quality, reliability and readability of digital and artificial intelligence resources for adults with cancer who have significant caregiving responsibilities for children.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Families often report searching the internet for guidance on how best to support children when a significant adult has cancer. This study aimed to identify and evaluate the quality, reliability, readability and content of websites, videos, and artificial intelligence (AI) resources available to adults with cancer who have caregiving responsibilities for children. Online platforms were searched using 10 phrases across Google web, YouTube, TikTok and four AI platforms. The mDISCERN instrument assessed reliability and quality, GQS assessed overall quality, and the NHS Medical Document Readability Tool assessed readability. Quantitative differences between sources were determined using pairwise analysis. Google web had significantly higher quality and reliability compared with AI and TikTok sources, with mean mDISCERN and GQS scores of 3.74 and 3.72, respectively. AI-generated resources showed lower mean mDISCERN and GQS scores of 2.77 (P < .05) and 2.32 (P < .05), respectively. TikTok videos had lower scores of 2.73 (P < .05) for mDISCERN and 2.49 (P < .05) for GQS. Estimated reading time was significantly longer (P < .05) for Google web (11:45mins) compared to AI (02:09mins). However, reading age did not differ (P = .31) at 15.09 years and 15.17 years respectively. There was a lack of accessible and inclusive resources for non-nuclear families, adults with neurodivergent children, culturally and ethnically diverse populations and families at end of life. Although Google web resources demonstrated higher overall quality and reliability, written resources across platforms often exceeded recommended reading levels, which may represent a significant health equity concern for individuals with lower health literacy and families experiencing deprivation. AI presents an opportunity whereby a single high-quality and evidence-based resource can be rapidly adapted into multiple formats, reading levels, languages and be culturally relevant. Future resources may benefit from co-production using a trusted, regulated, and centralised information hub, with supportive collaboration between health and social care professionals and technology providers.
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.