Commonly cited website quality criteria are not effective at identifying inaccurate online information about breast cancer

Cancer

Volumn 112, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1206-1213

  Bernstam, Elmer V ^a,b   Walji, Muhammad F ^a   Sagaram, Smitha ^a   Sagaram, Deepak ^a   Johnson, Craig W ^a   Meric Bernstam, Funda ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

(MeSH); Breast neoplasms; Complementary therapies *standards trends; Health education methods; Information services *standards utilization; Internet *standards statistics numerical data trends; Internet *standards utilization

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CONSULTATION; CONSUMER; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEARCH ENGINE;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION SERVICES; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 41149124429     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23308     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Satterlund MJ, McCaul KD, Sandgren AK. Information gathering over time by breast cancer patients. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5:e15.
2. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions: how internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2002. Located on URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/
3. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2618-2624.
4. Tang PC, Newcomb C. Informing patients: a guide for providing patient health information. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5:563-570.
5. Gerber BS, Eiser AR. The patient-physician relationship in the internet age: future prospects and the research agenda. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3:e15.
6. Fox S, Rainie L. The online health care revolution: how the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project: Online, 2000. Located on URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/
7. Helft PR, Hlubocky FJ, Gordon EJ, Ratain MJ, Daugherty C. Hope and the media in advanced cancer patients [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000;19. Abstract 2479.
8. Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Van Rompay MI, et al. Perceptions about complementary therapies relative to conventional therapies among adults who use both: results from a national survey. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:344-351.
9. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285:2612-2621.
10. Biermann JS, Golladay GJ, Greenfield ML, Baker LH. Evaluation of cancer information on the Internet. Cancer. 1999;86:381-390.
11. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, et al. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002;324:577-581.
12. Eysenbach G. Infodemiology: The epidemiology of (mis)information. Am J Med. 2002;113:763-765.
13. Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA. 1998;279:611-614.
14. Price SL, Hersh WR. Filtering Web pages for quality indicators: an empirical approach to finding high quality consumer health information on the World Wide Web. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:911-915.
15. Bernstam EV, Sagaram S, Walji M, Johnson CW, Meric-Bernstam F. Usability of quality measures for online health information: can commonly used technical quality criteria be reliably assessed? Int J Med Inform. 2005;74:675-683.
16. Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005;74:13-19.
17. Walji M, Sagaram S, Sagaram D, et al. Efficacy of quality criteria to identify potentially harmful information: a cross-sectional survey of complementary and alternative medicine web sites. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:e21.
18. Eysenbach G, Kohler C. 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. 2002;324:573-577.
19. Ask an Expert. Available at: http://www.justanswer.com/?r= gagen&gclid=CNGs1e6a9pACFQKHPAodMh703Q. Accessed 2003.
20. Meric F, Hunt KK. Surgical options for breast cancer. In: Hunt KK, Robb G, Strom EA, Ueno NT, eds. Breast Cancer. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001.
21. Breast cancer: treatment guidelines for patients (version V). American Cancer Society and National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2003. Available at: URL: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/about.asp. Accessed on January 7, 2004.
22. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53:141-169.
23. Meric F, Ross MI. Breast cancer. In: Pappas TN, Purcell GP, Eubanks WS, Tyler DS, Vaslef SN, eds. Unbound Surgery [on CD-ROM]. Charlottesville, VA: Unbound Medicine; 2002.
24. Larzelere RE, Mulaik SA. Single-sample tests for many correlations. Psychological Bulletin. 1977;84:557-569.
25. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.
26. 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;277:1244-1245.
27. Bhavnani SK. Why is it difficult to find comprehensive information? Implications of information scatter for search and design. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2005;56:989-1003.
28. Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the Internet. JAMA. 2002;287:2869-2871.