## 3 Results
### Group 1: Health Professional
#### 3.1.2 Quality of Included URLs  
Fair to good quality is exhibited by the reviewed websites. Details of the evaluation of candidate websites by HPs are given in Table 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Kappa Statistics** & **Strength of Agreement** \\ \hline \(<\)0.00 & Poor \\
0.00–0.20 & Slight \\
0.21–0.40 & Fair \\
0.41–0.60 & Moderate \\
0.61–0.80 & Substantial \\
0.81–1.00 & Almost Perfect \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Kappa Statistics and Strength of Agreement [44]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**N = 25**} & **Very Poor (Score = 16-29)** & **Poor (Score 30-40)** & **Fair (Score: 41-51)** & **Good (Score: 52-63)** & **Excellent (score: 64–80)** \\  & **(20\% to 36\%)** & **(37\% to 50\%)** & **(51\% to 64\%)** & **(65 \% to 79\%)** & **(80\%-& **(80\%-& **above)** \\ \hline DSCERN: Part-I (QI to QS) Reliability & \multirow{2}{*}{2(8\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(8\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{10(40\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{6 (24\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{5 (20\%)} \\ of Publication & & & & & \\ \hline DSCERN: Part-II (Q9 to Q15) Quality & \multirow{2}{*}{5(20\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{2(8\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{9(36\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{4 (16\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{5 (20\%)} \\ of Information on Treatment & & & & & \\ \hline DSCERN: Part-III (Q16) & \multirow{2}{*}{2(8\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{5(20\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{8(32\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{5(20\%)} & \multirow{2}{*}{5(20\%)} \\ Overall Quality & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Evaluation of all included websites by Group 1 (Health Professional (HPs)). DISCERN's Part-I (Question 1-8)  
In first part of DISCERN questionnaire, 'Excellent' results are shown by only 5 (20%) websites as can be seen from the Table 4. A good quality publication has clear aims and explains what it is about and what it covers. After assessment of Questions 1-8 of DISCERN, it is found that only 3 out of 25 websites (mentioned in Table A3: S.No.1-3) has clearly elaborated aim of publication and achieve 5 out of 5 in DISCERN points. Similarly, the websites mentioned in Table A3: S.No. 23-25 vaguely or unclearly describe aim of publication. The content of the two websites (mentioned in Table A3: S.No. 3-4) attain 4.8 and 4.7 points out of 5, respectively, in terms of relevance of publication. Thus, overall 10 (40%) of the websites demonstrate 'fair' evaluation on reliability of publication (Part-I) and 4 (16%) websites are established unreliable during the assessment period as is evident from Table 4. Six websites are unable to produce the date of publication and dates of main sources of evidences. While 11 websites have sufficiently produced date of publication and achieved 3-4 points in DISCERN ratings. DISCERN's Part-II (Question 9-15)  
It is observed from Table 4 Part-II that 5 (20%) websites had an excellent quality of information on treatment choices. Six websites have thoroughly explained each treatment which is useful for high BP. According to HPs, these websites have scored 4 to 5 out of 5 points of DISCERN. On treatment options, the quality of 7 (28%) websites is substandard. Furthermore, six websites had not described the risks or disadvantages of particular treatment, although it is very essential to be conscious of the risks in order to understand what to expect from the treatment and to be able to make further decisions. Quality of 9 (36%) websites is fair. Eight websites did not properly describe that what would happen if no treatment is used. According to HPs, it is the most dominant question because a publication of good quality will always include a description of what would happen if the condition remains untreated. DISCERN's Part-III (Question 16)  
From Question 16, overall quality of the website is assessed. As is apparent from Table 4, only 5 (20%) websites (out of 25) have 'excellent' quality and have produced appropriate sources of information on high BP. The overall quality of 5 (20%) websites is poor. Similarly, 2 (8%) websites are deficient in content.