High-Quality eHealth Websites for Information on Endometriosis: Systematic Search

Diksha Sirohi, Cecilia Ng, Niranjan Bidargaddi, Helen Slater, Melissa Parker, M. Louise Hull, Rebecca O’Hara
Journal of medical Internet research · 2023 · vol. 26 , pp. e48243 · doi:10.2196/48243 · PMID:38198205 · W4389062541
review OA: gold CC0
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This systematic search identified four high-quality endometriosis eHealth websites based on usability, design, content, and engagement, recommending them for community and clinician use.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This systematic search study evaluated the quality of free, English-language eHealth websites related to endometriosis, adenomyosis, or pelvic pain by running two Google searches (international and Australian) and screening the top 30 results in incognito mode. Eighty of 117 screened websites were assessed using the ENLIGHT tool across seven domains including usability, visual design, content evidence, user engagement, and therapeutic persuasiveness/alliance, with “high quality” defined as a total ENLIGHT score of at least 3.5. The authors found only four websites meeting this threshold—Endometriosis Australia Facebook Page, Endometriosis UK, EndoActive’s National Action Plan for Endometriosis, and Adenomyosis by the Medical Republic—while many sites scored poorly on referencing/authorship and on engagement/persuasion/alliance domains. Limitations included that search results may vary by geography and that the review relied on Google search outputs. This paper is centrally about endometriosis and explicitly evaluates high-quality endometriosis/adenomyosis information websites for community and clinicians.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BACKGROUND: eHealth websites are increasingly being used by community members to obtain information about endometriosis. Additionally, clinicians can use these websites to enhance their understanding of the condition and refer patients to these websites. However, poor-quality information can adversely impact users. Therefore, a critical evaluation is needed to assess and recommend high-quality endometriosis websites. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the quality and provide recommendations for high-quality endometriosis eHealth websites for the community and clinicians. METHODS: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines informed 2 Google searches of international and Australian eHealth websites. The first search string used the terms "endometriosis," "adenomyosis," or "pelvic pain," whereas "Australia" was added to the second search string. Only free eHealth websites in English were included. ENLIGHT, a validated tool, was used to assess the quality across 7 domains such as usability, visual design, user engagement, content, therapeutic persuasiveness, therapeutic alliance, and general subjective evaluation. Websites with a total score of 3.5 or more were classified as "good" according to the ENLIGHT scoring system and are recommended as high-quality eHealth websites for information on endometriosis. RESULTS: In total, 117 eHealth websites were screened, and 80 were included in the quality assessment. Four high-quality eHealth websites (ie, those that scored 3.5 or more) were identified (Endometriosis Australia Facebook Page, Endometriosis UK, National Action Plan for Endometriosis on EndoActive, and Adenomyosis by the Medical Republic). These websites provided easily understood, engaging, and accurate information. Adenomyosis by the Medical Republic can be used as a resource in clinical practice. Most eHealth websites scored well, 3.5 or more in the domains of usability (n=76, 95%), visual design (n=64, 80%), and content (n=63, 79%). However, of the 63 websites, only 25 provided references and 26 provided authorship details. Few eHealth websites scored well on user engagement (n=18, 23%), therapeutic persuasiveness (n=2, 3%), and therapeutic alliance (n=22, 28%). In total, 30 (38%) eHealth websites scored well on general subjective evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Although geographical location can influence the search results, we identified 4 high-quality endometriosis eHealth websites that can be recommended to the endometriosis community and clinicians. To improve quality, eHealth websites must provide evidence-based information with appropriate referencing and authorship. Factors that enhance usability, visual design, user engagement, therapeutic persuasiveness, and therapeutic alliance can lead to the successful and long-term uptake of eHealth websites. User engagement, therapeutic persuasiveness, and therapeutic alliance can be strengthened by sharing lived experiences and personal stories and by cocreating meaningful content for both the community and clinicians. Reach and discoverability can be improved by leveraging search engine optimization tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020185475; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=185475&VersionID=2124365.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

mesh:D004715endometriosisadenomyosis

MeSH descriptors

Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Adenomyosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Telemedicine Telemedicine Telemedicine Telemedicine Telemedicine Telemedicine

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (31)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-04T01:30:01.192114+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-29T00:33:03.234323+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK