Training the health information seeker: Quality issues in health information Web Sites

Library Trends

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 360-374

  Crespo, Javier ^a  

^a Natl Netwk LM New England R   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 13844277016     PISSN: 00242594     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Berland, G., Elliott, M., & Morales, L., et al. (2001). Health information on the Internet: Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(20), 2612-2621.
2. Centre for Health Information Quality (CHIQ). (2000). QUICK: The quality information checklist. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.quick.org.uk/menu.htm.
3. Centre for Health Information Quality (CHIQ). (2002). Guidelines for reviewing health information. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from http://www.hfht.org/chiq/reviewers_guidelines.pdf.
4. Eysenbach, G., & Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British Medical Journal, 324(7337), 573-577.
5. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Eun-Ryoung, S. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(20), 2691-2700.
6. Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., & Danielson, D. et al. (2002). How do people evaluate a Web site's credibility? Results from a large study. Stanford: Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved October 2, 2004, from http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/report3_credibilityresearch/ stanfordPTL_abstract.htm.
7. Fox, S., & Rainie, L. (2002). Vital decisions: How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=59.
8. Fox, S., Rainie, L., & Horrigan, J., et al. (2000). The online health care revolution: How the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Health_Report.pdf.
9. Health Improvement Institute. (2003). A report on the evaluation of criteria sets for assessing health Web sites. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/health.
10. Health on the Net Foundation. (1997). HON Code of Conduct (HONcode)for medical and health Web sites. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html.
11. Health Summit Working Group. (1999). Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet [Policy paper]. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://hitiweb.mitretek.org/docs/policy.html.
12. Licciardone, J., Smith-Barbaro, P., & Coleridge, S. (2001 ). Use of the Internet as a resource for consumer health information: Results of the Second Osteopathic Survey of Health Care in America (OSTEOSURV-II). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5(4), e31. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.jmir.Org/2001/4/e31/index.htm.
13. Risk, A., & Dzenowagis, J. (2001). Review of Internet health information quality initiatives. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 3(4), e28. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.jmir.org/2001/4/e28/index.htm.
14. Taylor.H. (2001) Cyberchondriacs update (Harris Poll, #19). Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=229.
15. URAC. (n.d.). URAC's 50+ rigorous standards help to build quality health Web site that consumers trust. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://webapps.urac.org/websiteaccreditation/Portal/Consumer/Standards.asp.