Empowering citizens in assessing health-related websites: A driving factor for healthcare governance

International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management

Volumn 8, Issue 1-2, 2007, Pages 141-160

  Alpay, Laurence L ^a   Overberg, Regina I ^a   Zwetsloot Schonk, Bertie J H M ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Accreditation labels; Assessment; Filtering tools; Health related websites; Healthcare governance; Information quality; Internet; Patient empowerment; User guidance tools

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ACCREDITATION; ARTICLE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DIGITAL FILTERING; EMPOWERMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; PATIENT CARE; PUBLIC HEALTH;

EID: 33845875512     PISSN: 13682156     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJHTM.2007.012103     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Alpay, L.L., Toussaint, P.J., Ezendam, N.P.M., Rovekamp, T., Graafmans, W. and Westendorp, R. (2004) 'Easing internet access of health information for the elderly users: design considerations and usability', Health Informatics Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.185-194.
2. Anderson, P.F., Allee, N.J., Gove, S. and Hill, S. (1998) http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~pfa/mlaguide/free/webeval.pdf, accessed 17 August 2005.
3. Bernstam, E.V., Sagaram, S. Walji, M., Johnson, C.W. and Meric-Bernstam, F. (2005) 'Usability of quality measures for online health information: can commonly used technical quality criteria be reliably assessed?', International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 74, No. 7/8, pp.675-683.
4. Caddy, J. (2001) 'Why citizens are central to good governance', Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (OCED) Observer.
5. CancerIndex (2003) http://www.cancerindex.org/clinks18.htm, accessed 17 August 2005.
6. Children's Memorial Hospital (2005) http://www.childrensmemorial.org/ parents/consumerHealth/default.asp, accessed 17 August 2005.
7. Children's Virtual Hospital (2002) http://www.vh.org/pediatric/patient/ pediatrics/cqqa/internethealth.html, accessed 17 August 2005.
8. Coverdell, M.A. and Utley, R. (2005) 'The healthcare information gap: a global and national perspective', Online Journal of Nursing Informatics (OJNI), Vol. 9, No. 1.
9. Delamothe, T. (2000) 'Quality of websites: kitemarking in the west wind', BMJ, Vol. 321, No. 7265, pp.843-844.
10. DISCERN (1999) http://www.discern.org.uk/, accessed 17 August 2005.
11. Dutch Breast Cancer Information Pages (2005) http://www.borstkanker.net, accessed 17 August 2005.
12. Dutch Breast Cancer Patient Organisation (2005) http://www.kankerpatien.nl/BVN/, accessed 17 August 2005, from 22 September 2005 changed into www.borstkanker.nl
13. Dutch Cancer Society (2005) http://www.kankerbestrijding.nl, accessed 17 August 2005.
14. Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations (2005) http://www.kankerpatient.nl, accessed 17 August 2005.
15. eEurope (2002) 'Quality criteria for health related websites', http://www.jmir.org/2002/3/e15/, accessed 17 August 2005.
16. eHealth Ethics Initiative (2000) http://www.iheathcoalition.org/ethics/ ethics.html, accessed 17 August 2005.
17. Evans, S., Tritter, J., Barley, V., Daykin, N., Mcneill, J., Palmer, N., Rimmer, J., Sanidas, M. and Turton, P. (2003) 'User involvement in UK cancer services: bridging the policy gap', European Journal of Cancer Care (Engl), Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.331-338.
18. Eysenbach, G. and 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', BMJ, Vol. 324, No. 7337, pp.573-577.
19. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O. and Sa, E.R. (2002) 'Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web', JAMA, Vol. 287, No. 20, pp.2691-2700.
20. Fahey, D.K. and Weinberg, J. (2003) 'LASIK complications and the Internet: Is the public being mislead?', Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIRI), Vol. 5, No. 1.
21. Frankish, C.J., Kwan, B., Ratner, P.A., Higgins, J.W. and Larsen, C. (2002) 'Challenges of citizen participation in regional health authorities', Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 54, No. 10, pp.1471-1480.
22. Glanz K., Rimer, B.K. and Lewis, F.M. (2002) Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice, Jossey-Bass.
23. Google™ (2005) http://www.google.com, accessed 17 August 2005.
24. Healthfinder® (2005) http://www.healthfinder.gov/, accessed 17 August 2005.
25. Helft, P.R., Hlobocky, F. and Daugherty, C.K. (2003) 'American oncologists' views of internet use by cancer patients: a mail survey of American Society of Clinical Oncology members', Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.942-947.
26. Hernñandez Borgers, A.A., Macias Cevi, P., Torres Álvarez de Arcaya, M.L., Gaspar Guardado, M.A., Ruíz Rabaza, A. and Jiménez Sosa, A. (2001) 'Rate compliance with the HON code of conduct versus number of inbound links as quality markers of pediatric websites', Proceedings of MEDNET.
27. HON (Health on the Net Foundation) (1996) http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/ HON_CCE_en.htm, accessed 17 August 2005.
28. Internet Health Coalition (2001) http://www.chu-rouen.fr/netscoring/ netscoringeng.html, accessed 17 August 2005.
29. Jadad, A. (1999) 'Promoting partnernships: challenge for the Internet age', BMJ, Vol. 319, No. 7212, pp.761-764.
30. Jones, J. (1999) 'Development of a self assessment method for patients to evaluate health information on the Internet', Proceedings of AMIA, pp.540-544.
31. Kiel, J.M. (2005) 'The digital divide: Internet and e-mail use by the elderly', Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.19-23.
32. Kim, P., Eng, T.R., Deering, M-J. and Maxfield, A. (1999) 'Published criteria for evaluating health related websites: review', BMJ, Vol. 318, No. 7184, pp.647-649.
33. Mitretek Health Information Technology Institute (1999) http://hitiweb.mitretek.org/docs/criteria.html, accessed 17 August 2005.
34. National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) (2001) 'Making your web site senior friendly', http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/checklist.pdf, accessed 17 August 2005.
35. Okot-Uma, R. (2000) 'Electronic governance: re-inventing good governance', publication of the World Bank Group, http://wwwl.worldbank.org/publicsector/egov/Okot-Uma.pdf, accessed 17 August 2005.
36. OMNI (2005) http://www.omni.ac.uk, accessed 17 August 2005.
37. Overberg, R., Toussaint, P. and Zwetsloot-Schonk, B. (2006) 'Illness stories on the internet: features of websites disclosing breast cancer patients' illness stories in the Dutch language', Patient Education and Counselling, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp.435-442.
38. Purcell, G.P., Wilson, P. and Delamothe, T. (2002) 'the quality of health information on the Internet', BMJ, Vol. 324, No. 7337, pp.557-558.
39. QMIC® (2000) http://www.qmic.nl/qmic/home.do, accessed 17 August 2005.
40. Raad voor Volkgezondheid and Zorg (RVZ) Dutch Council for Public Health and Health Care (2000) http://www.rvz.net Patient and Internet (Document 99/17), accessed 17 August 2005.
41. Risk, A. (2002) 'Commentary: on the way to quality', BMJ, Vol. 324, No. 7337, pp.601-602.
42. Rowe, R and Shepherd, M. (2002) 'Public participation in the new NHS: No closer to citizen control?', Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.275-290.
43. SeniorGezond (2004) http://www.seniorgezond.nl, accessed 17 August 2005.
44. Scholman, B. (2004) 'The digital divide: how wide and how deep?', Online Journal of Issues on Nursing, http://nursingworld.org/ojin/infocol/ info_14.htm.
45. Smith, R. (2003) 'Closing the digital divide', BMJ, Vol. 326. No. 7383, p.238.
46. SPRY (Setting Priorities for Retirement Years) (2001) http://www.spry.org/sprys_work/education/EvaluatingHealthInfo.html, accessed 17 August 2005.
47. Te'eni D. (2001) 'Review: A cognitive affective model of organizational communication for designing IT', MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.251-312.
48. Trubek, L.G. (2003) 'Achieving equality: Healthcare governance in transition', American Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 29, Nos. 2 & 3.
49. University of California Berkeley Library (2004) http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html, accessed 17 August 2005.
50. Vivici. Website of digital doctors (2005) http://www.vivici.nl., accessed 17 August 2005.
51. Wagner, T.H., Bundorf, M.K., Singer, S.J. and Baker, L.C. (2005) 'Free internet access, the digital divide, and health information', Medical Care, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.415-420.
52. Wilson, P. (2002) 'How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet', BMJ, Vol. 324, No. 7337, pp.598-600.
53. Wolfgram Memorial Library (2005) http://www.widener.edu/Tools_Resources/ Libraries/Wolfgram_Memorial_Library/Evaluate_Web_Pages/659, accessed 17 August 2005.
54. WRAPIN. http://www.wrapin.org, accessed 17 August 2005.