Abstract P056: Quality Assessment Of Consumer-facing Sodium Reduction Websites

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the quality of information and guidance on dietary sodium reduction available on consumer-facing websites. Methods: Google Trends was used to identify the five most used search terms related to sodium reduction. For each term, the top 20 websites were collected. Of 93 unique websites, 69 met inclusion criteria. Each website was evaluated using 14 questions in three categories ("information", "guidance", “accuracy”). For each question, the website was scored using a 3-step scale (“none”, “somewhat”, “adequate”). Results: Overall, only three of 14 questions were addressed adequately by a majority of websites (Figure). Many provided information on adverse health effects of a high sodium diet (74%, n=51) or mentioned intake recommendations (64%, n=44). Information on dietary sources of sodium and potassium or the difference between salt and sodium was largely missing. Most websites (80%, n=55) provided information on lifestyle strategies to reduce blood pressure, but a majority did not provide guidance for purchasing or preparing food with less sodium. Misinformation was uncommon. Conclusion: Consumers seeking information and guidance online will find most websites offer accurate but limited information, and insufficient guidance on how to lower sodium intake. Practical tools and relevant skills should be included for effective sodium reduction. Figure. Quality of guidance and information of identified websites (n=69) to help consumers lower sodium intake. Google trends was used to identify five frequently used search terms regarding sodium reduction. The 14 questions applied to each website were designed to evaluate the presence and quality of information and guidance for dietary sodium reduction. For each question, the information, guidance, or accuracy of the website was scored as “none”, “somewhat”, or “adequate”. Two researchers (TH and TA) independently assessed each question for each website, and disagreements were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third investigator (MEH).