Peer-reviewed article
Evaluating the quality, reliability and readability of digital and artificial intelligence resources for adults with cancer who have significant caregiving responsibilities for children.
Anand R, Semple CJ, Strutt L, Paul S, Hanna JR ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This study evaluates the quality and readability of online resources (websites, videos, AI platforms) available to adults with cancer who care for children. Google web resources showed higher quality and reliability than AI or TikTok sources, though all platforms had reading levels exceeding recommended standards. The study found gaps in accessible resources for diverse family structures and cultural backgrounds.
Key points
- Google web resources had significantly higher quality and reliability (mDISCERN 3.74, GQS 3.72) compared to AI (2.77, 2.32) and TikTok (2.73, 2.49)
- All platforms had reading ages around 15 years, exceeding recommended levels for general populations
- Lack of accessible resources for non-nuclear families, neurodivergent children, culturally diverse populations, and end-of-life families
- AI resources had shorter estimated reading time (02:09 mins) than Google web (11:45 mins)
- Study recommends co-production of high-quality, evidence-based resources adapted into multiple formats and languages
Limitations
This study evaluates information resources for adult caregivers rather than assessing child well-being outcomes or interventions directly affecting children. The document does not measure whether these resources actually improve children's well-being or coping when a parent has cancer.
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.