Evaluation of patient information Internet web sites about menopause and hormone replacement therapy

Maturitas

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 135-154

  Reed, Michele ^a   Anderson, Claire ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Hormone replacement therapy; Internet; Menopause; Web site

Indexed keywords

COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; DRUG INDUSTRY; EVALUATION; FACTUAL DATABASE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HORMONE SUBSTITUTION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; LANGUAGE; MENOPAUSE; PATIENT INFORMATION; PHARMACY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SOCIAL WELFARE;

EID: 0037174954     PISSN: 03785122     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-5122(02)00188-3     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. World Congress of Pharmacy . The transforming power of information and communications technology. Pharm. J. 265:2000;582.
2. Jadad A.R. Promoting partnerships: challenges for the internet age. Brit. Med. J. 319:1999;761-764.
3. Lawrence S., Giles C.L. Accessibility of information on the web. Nature. 400:1999;107-109.
4. Lawrence S., Giles C.L. Searching the World Wide Web. Science. 280:1998;98-100.
5. Murray P, Rizzolo MA. Web site reviews and evaluations. Nursing Standard July 30 1997;11(45). Available from http://www.nursing-standard.co.uk/archives/vol11-45/ol-art.htm. Accessed 06/12/00.
6. Tan-Torres Edejer T. Information in practice: disseminating health information in developing countries: the role of the Internet. Brit. Med. J. 321:2000;797-800.
7. NHS Executive: Department of Health. Meeting public and patients' needs. Available from http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexipu/strategy/full/5.htm accessed on 12/10/00.
8. British Government. UK online. Available from http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/sub_getting.htm accessed on 24/11/00.
9. Coiera E. Editorial: the Internet's challenge to health care provision. Brit. Med. J. 312:1996;3-4.
10. Eysenbach G. Consumer health informatics. Brit. Med. J. 320:2000;1713-1716.
11. Coulter A. Evidence based patient information: is important, so there needs to be a national strategy to ensure it. Brit. Med. J. 317:1998;225-226.
12. Sellu D. Clinical encounters in cyberspace. Brit. Med. J. 312:1996;49.
13. Pallen M. Guide to the Internet: the World Wide Web. Brit. Med. J. 311:1995;1552-1556.
14. Eysenbach G., Diepgen T.L. Towards quality management of medical information on the Internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. Brit. Med. J. 317:1998;1496-1500.
15. Impicciatore P., Pandolfini 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. Brit. Med. J. 314:1997;1875.
16. University of Nottingham. Welcome to OMNI. Available from http://www.omni.ac.uk. Accessed 30/11/00.
17. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. Available from http://www.cochrane.org. Accessed 30/11/00.
18. Shepperd S, Charnock D. University of Oxford. The DISCERN Instrument. Available from http://www.discern.org.uk/discern_instrument.htm. Accessed 30/11/00.
19. NHS Executive. NHS Direct: your gateway to health information on the Internet. Available from http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk. Accessed 30/11/00.
20. The University of Nottingham. About OMNI. Available from http://omni.ac.uk/about/. Accessed on 27/11/00.
21. British Government. National electronic library for health (pilot site). Available from http://www.nhs.uk/nelh. Accessed 30/11/00.
22. The Cochrane Collaboration, Godlee F. Brit. Med. J. 309:1994;969-970.
23. Delamothe T. Quality of websites: kitemarking the west wind: rating the quality of medical websites may be impossible. Brit. Med. J. 321:2000;843-844.
24. Kim P., Eng T.R., Deering M.J., Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review. Brit. Med. J. 318:1999;647-649.
25. The University of Nottingham: BIOME Special Advisory Group on Evaluation. Quality issues for OMNI. Available from http://biome.ac.uk/guidelines/eval/specific.html. Assessed 27/11/00.
26. Widener University. Checklist for an Informational Web Page. Available from http://www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/webevaluation/inform.htm. Accessed 26/11/00.
27. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Collaboration Strategic Plan. Available from http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/stratp96.htm#principles. Accessed29 30/11/00
28. Ormondroyd J, Engle M, Cosgrave T. How to Critically Analyze Information Sources. Available from http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/research/skill26.htm. Accessed 30/11/2000.
29. Shepperd S, Charnock D. University of Oxford. Discern online: quality criteria for consumer health information. Available from http://www.discern.org.uk. Accessed 28/11/00.
30. Health On the Net Foundation. HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) for medical and health web sites: Principles. Available from http://www.hon.ch/honcode/conduct.html. Accessed 28/11/00.
31. British Healthcare Internet Association: Galloway P. Quality Standards for Medical Publishing on the Web: BMIA-REC-Quality Standards for Medical Publishing on the Web-7/12/96. Available from http://www.bhia.org/reference/documents/recommend_webquality.htm. Accessed 30/11/00.
32. United States government. Content Selection Policies and Procedures. Available from http://www.healthfinder.gov/aboutus/selectionpolicy.htm. Accessed 30/11/00.
33. Tillman HN. Evaluating Quality on the Net. Available from http://www.hopetillman.com/findqual.html. Accessed 30/11/00.
34. Grassian E. Thinking Critically about World Wide Web Resources. Available from http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/help/critical/index.htm. Accessed 30/11/00.
35. Harris R. Evaluating Internet Research Sources. Available from http://www.vanguard.edu/rharris/evalu8it.htm. Accessed 30/11/00.
36. University of Southern Maine Library. Checklist for Evaluating Web Resources. Available from http://library.usm.maine.edu/guides/webeval.html. Accessed 30/11/00.
37. University at Albany Libraries: Cohen L, Jacobson T. Evaluating Internet Resources. Available from http://www.albany.edu/library/internet/evaluate.html. Accessed 30/11/00.
38. Johnson K. C-H-I-Q: Guidelines for producing and maintaining patient information on conditions and treatments. Available from http://www.hfht.org/chiq/guidelines.htm. Accessed 30/11/00.
39. Schneider H.P.G., Gallagher J.C. Moderation of the daily dose of HRT: benefits for patients. Maturitas. 33:1999;S25-S29.
40. Avis N.E., McKinlay S.M. The Massachusetts women's health study: American epidemiologic investigation of the menopause. J. Am. Med. Women's Assoc. 50:(2):1995;45-50.
41. Turner G.O., Le K.J., Monnier K.J., Brewster S.F. Urology and the Internet: an evaluation of Internet use by urology patients and of information available on urological topics. BJU Int. 86:2000;191-194.
42. Bonati M., Impicciatore P., Pandolfini C. Quality on the Internet. Brit. Med. J. 317:1998;1501.
43. Griffiths K.M., Christensen H. Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: cross sectional survey. Brit. Med. J. 321:2000;1511-1515.
44. Beredjiklian P.K., Bozentka D.J., Steinberg D.R., Bernstein J. Evaluating the source and content of orthopaedic information on the Internet: The case of carpel tunnel syndrome. J. Bone Joint Surg. 82-A:(11):2000;1540-1543.
45. Biermann J.S., Golladay G.J., Greenfield M.L.V.H., Baker L.H. Evaluation of cancer information on the Internet. Cancer. 86:1999;381-390.
46. Li L., Irvine E., Guzman J., Bombardier C. Surfing for back pain patients: the nature and quality of back pain information on the Internet. Spine. 26:(5):2001;545-557.
47. Sandvik H. Health information and interaction on the internet: a study of female urinary incontinence. Brit. Med. J. 319:1999;29-32.
48. Soot L.C., Moneta G.L., Edwards J.M. Vascular surgery and the internet: a poor source of patient-orientated information. J. Vascular Surg. 30:1999;84-91.
49. Impicciatore P., Pandolfini 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. Brit. Med. J. 314:1997;1875.
50. Armstrong R, Rasker JJ (Hans). A source of information for rheumatologists, allied health professionals, medical students and the general public. Annals of rheumatic disease 2000;59;241-2. Available from http://www.ilar.org
51. Huizingh E.K.R.E. The content and design of web sites: an empirical study. Inf. Manage. 37:2000;123-134.
52. The University of Nottingham: BIOME Special Advisory Group on Evaluation. Factors affecting the quality of an information source. Available from http://biome.ac.uk/guidelines/eval/factors.html. Assessed 27/11/00.
53. Eysenbach G., Diepgen T.L. Towards quality management of medical information on the Internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. Brit. Med. J. 317:1998;1496-1500.
54. Maroney D. In praise of hypertext. J. Advertising Res. 1997;7-9.
55. Nakayama T., Kato H., Yamane Y. Discovering the gap between Web site designers' expectations and users' behaviour. Comupter Networks. 33:2000;811-822.
56. Kahn C.E. Jr. Design and implementation of an Internet-based health information resource. Computer Methods Programs Biomed. 63:2000;85-97.
57. Liu C., Arnett K.P. Exploring the factors associated with Web site success in the context of electronic commerce. Inf. Manage. 38:2000;23-33.
58. Dala N.P., Quible Z., Wyatt K. Cognitive design of home pages: and experimental study of comprehension on the World Wide Web. Inf. Processing Manage. 36:2000;607-621.