Web page quality: Can we measure it and what do we find? A report of exploratory findings

Journal of Public Health Medicine

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 191-197

  Abbott, Vincent P ^a  

^a Wesham Park Hospital   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

MMR vaccine; Quality; ROC curves; World Wide Web

Indexed keywords

MEASLES MUMPS RUBELLA VACCINE;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY CONTROL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REFERENCE VALUE;

AUTHORSHIP; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INFORMATION SERVICES; INTERNET; MEASLES-MUMPS-RUBELLA VACCINE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0034045593     PISSN: 09574832     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/22.2.191     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet. Caveant lector et viewor - let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997; 227(15): 1244-1245.
2. Bower H. Internet sees growth of unverified health claims. Br Med J 1996; 313: 381.
3. Impicciatore P, Pandolfin C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. Br Med J 1997; 314: 1875-1879.
4. Lindsay B. Information on the Internet: consumer guides to health care. Br J Hlth Care Manage 1996; 2(8): 445-447.
5. Marra CA, Carleton BC, Lynd LD, et al. Drug and poison information resource on the Internet, part 2: identification and evaluation. Pharmacotherapy 1996; 16(5): 806-818.
6. Wyatt JC. Measuring quality and impact of the World Wide Web. Br Med J 1997; 314: 1879-1881.
7. Georgia Tech Research Corporation. GVU's 8th WWW user survey. Accessed 4 July 1998. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/
8. Anon. The web of information inequality (editorial). Lancet 1997; 349: 1781.
9. Selway J. Medical practitioners need to give more than reassurance (letters). Br Med J 1998; 316: 1824.
10. Anon. MMR vaccine coverage falls after adverse publicity. Commun Dis Rep CDR Wkly 1998; 8: 5.
11. Gangerosa EJ, Galazka AM, Wolfe CR, et al. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Lancet 1998; 351: 356-361.
12. Pealer LN, Dorman SM. Evaluating health-related Web sites. J School Hlth 1997; 67(6): 232-235.
13. Scholz A. Evaluating World Wide Web information. Accessed 23 March 1998. http://thorplus.lib.purdue.edu/research/classes/gs175/ 3gs175/evaluation.html
14. Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel. JAMA 1998; 279(8): 611-614.
15. Health on the Net Foundation. Health on the Net foundation code of conduct for medical Web sites. Accessed 3 December 1997. http:// www.hon.ch/HONcode/conduct_t.html
16. Day A. A model for monitoring Web site effectiveness. Internet Res Electron Networking Appl Policy 1997; 7(2): 109-115.
17. British Healthcare Internet Association. Quality standards for medical publishing on the web. Accessed 31 March 1999. http://www.bhia.org/ reference/documents/recommend_webquality.htm
18. Health Information Technology Institute, Mitretek Systems. Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the internet. Accessed 31 March 1999. http://www.mitretek.org/hiti/showcase/documents/criteria.html
19. Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review. Br Med J 1999; 318: 647-649.
20. AltaVista. Accessed April 1998. http://www.altavista.digital.com/
21. Lycos. Accessed April 1998. http://www.lycos.co.uk/
22. Branscomb HE. Casting your net. A student's guide to research on the Internet. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1998.
23. Kiley R. Medical information on the Internet: a guide for health professionals. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1996.
24. Yahoo! Accessed April 1998. http://www.yahoo.com/
25. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 637-641.
26. Pallen M. Guide to the internet: the world wide web. Br Med J 1995; 311: 1552-1556.
27. Salisbury DM, Begg NT. Immunisation against infectious disease. Edward Jenner bicentenary edition. London: HMSO, 1996.
28. Beck JR, Shultz EK. The use of relative operating characteristic (ROC) curves in test performance evaluation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1986; 110: 13-20.
29. Goodenough DJ, Rossmann K, Lusted LB. Radiographic applications of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Radiology 1974; 110: 89-95.
30. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148: 839-843.
31. Shultz EK. Multivariate receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis: prostate cancer screening as an example. Clin Chem 1995; 41(8B): 1248-1255.
32. Swets JA. ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging techniques. Invest Radiol 1979; 14(2): 109-121.
33. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993; 39(4): 561-577.
34. Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997.
35. Anon. Case reports to NVIC of diabetes following MMR shots. Accessed 23 April 1998. http://www.909shot.com/dicasee.htm
36. Read M. The vaccine controversy. Accessed 23 April 1998. http:// www.marysherbs.com/vaccine.htm
37. Neustaedter R. About vaccine choices. Accessed 23 April 1998. http:// www.healthy.net/library/articles/neustaedter/aboutvac.htm
38. International Chiropractic Pediatric Association. Vaccinations. Accessed 23 April 1998. http://www.4icpa.org/Vaccinations/mmr.htm
39. Anon. Welcome to PAVE (People Advocating Vaccine Education). Accessed 23 April 1998. http://www.unidial.com/∼metroprint/ pave2.html
40. Northern Ireland information service. Accessed 30 April 1998. http:// alexandra14.nio.gov.uk/press.htm