Practicing reliability: Reconstructing traditional boundaries in the gray areas of health information review on the web

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 34-54

  Adams, Samantha ^a   Bal, Roland ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Information classification; Internet; Reliability

Indexed keywords

EID: 57749197824     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243907311267     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Adams, S.A., and A. A. de Bont. 2007a. Information Rx: Prescribing good consumerism and responsible citizenship. Health Care Analysis 15:273-90.
2. Adams, S.A., and A. A. de Bont. 2007b. More than just a mouse click: Research into work practices behind the assignment of medical trust marks on the world wide web. International Journal of Medical Informatics 76 (1): 14-20.
3. Adams, S.A., A. A. de Bont, and M. Berg. 2006. Looking for answers, constructing reliability: An exploration into how Dutch patients "check" web-based medical information. International Journal of Medical Informatics 75 (1): 66-72.
4. Appleby, C. 1999. Net gain or net loss? Health care consumers become internet savvy. Trustee Magazine 52:20-23.
5. Berg, M. 1997. Of forms, containers, and the electronic medical record: Some tools for a sociology of the formal. Science, Technology, & Human Values 22:403-33.
6. Berg, M., K. Horstman, S. Plass, and M. van Heusden. 2000. Guidelines, professionals and the production of objectivity: Standardization and the professionalism of insurance medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness 22:765-91.
7. Berg, M., and S. Timmermans. 2000. Orders and their others: On the constitution of universalities in medical work. Configurations 8:31-61.
8. Bernstam, E.V., D.M. Shelton, M. Walji, and F. Meric-Bernstam. 2005. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the world wide web: What can our patients actually use? International Journal of Medical Informatics 74:13-19.
9. Bowker, G., and S.L. Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Cho, M.K. 2000. Guidelines for advertising on health web sites: Who's guarding the Koop? Western Journal of Medicine 172:230-32.
11. Coiera, E. 1998. Information epidemics, economics, and immunity on the internet. British Medical Journal 317:1469-70.
12. Coiera, E. 2003. Guide to health informatics. London: Arnold.
13. Craigie, M., B. Loader, R. Burrows, and S. Muncer. 2002. Reliability of health information on the internet: An examination of experts' ratings. Journal of Medical Internet Research 4 (2): E2. http://www.jmir.org/2002/ 1/e2/index.htm (accessed March 15, 2003).
14. Dodier, N. 1998. Clinical practice and procedures in occupational medicine: A study of the framing of individuals. In Differences in Medicine, edited by M. Berg and A. Mol, 53-85. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
15. Eysenbach, G. 1999. Rating information on the internet can empower users to make informed decisions. British Medical Journal 319:385.
16. Eysenbach, G. 2000. Consumer health informatics. British Medical Journal 320:1713-16.
17. Eysenbach, G. 2002. Infodemiology: The epidemiology of (mis)information. American Journal of Medicine 113:763-65.
18. Eysenbach, G., and T.L. Diepgen. 1998. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: Evaluation, labeling, and filtering of information. British Medical Journal 317:1496-98.
19. Ferguson, T. 2002. From patients to end users. British Medical Journal 324:555-56.
20. Fox N.J., K.J. Ward, and A.J. O'Rourke. 2005. The expert patient: Empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the internet. Social Science & Medicine 30:1299-1309.
21. Gagliardi, A., and A. Jadad. 2002. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: Chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. British Medical Journal 324:569-73.
22. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
23. Hardey, M. 1999. Doctor in the house: The internet as a source of lay health knowledge and the challenge to expertise. Sociology of Health & Illness 21:820-35.
24. Hardey, M. 2001. "E-health": The internet and the transformation of patients into consumers and producers of health knowledge. Information, Communication and Society 4:388-405.
25. Health on the Net Foundation. 1997. HON code of conduct (HONcode) for medical and health web sites. http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html (accessed April 2006).
26. Henwood, F., S. Wyatt, A. Hart, and J. Smith. 2002. Turned on or turned off? Accessing health information on the internet. Scandinavian Journal for Information Systems 14 (2): 79-90.
27. Henwood, F., S. Wyatt, A. Hart, and J. Smith. 2003. " Ignorance is bliss sometimes": Constraints on the emergence of the "informed patient" in the changing landscapes of health information. Sociology of Health & Illness 25:589-607.
28. Impicciatore, P., C. Pandolfini, N. Casella, and M. Bonati. 1997. Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: Systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. British Medical Journal 314:1875-81.
29. Jadad, A., and A. Gagliardi. 1998. Rating health information on the internet: Navigating to knowledge or to Babel? Journal of the American Medical Association 279:611-14.
30. Kivits, J. 2004. Researching the "informed patient": The case of online health information seekers. Information, Communication and Society 7:510-30.
31. Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.
32. Luo, W., and M. Najdawi. 2004. Trust-building measures: A review of consumer health portals. Communications of the ACM 47 (1): 109-13.
33. Lupton, D. 1997. Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter. Social Science & Medicine 45:373-81.
34. Lynch, M. 1992. Extending Wittgenstein: The pivotal move from epistemology to the sociology of science. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering, 215-65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Meric, F., E.V. Bernstam, N.Q. Mirza, K.K. Hunt, F.C. Ames, M.I. Ross, H.M. Kuerer, R.E. Pollock, M.A. Musen, and S.E. Singletary. 2002. Breast cancer on the World Wide web: Cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. British Medical Journal 324:577-81.
36. Pandolfini, C., P. Impicciatore, and M. Bonati. 2000. Parents on the web: Risks for quality management of cough in children. Pediatrics 105 (1): E1. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/1/e1 (accessed June 28, 2007).
37. Power, M. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38. Risk, A., and J. Dzenowagis. 2001. Review of internet health information quality initiatives. Journal of Medical Internet Research 3 (4): E28. http://www.jmir.org/2001/4/e28/index.htm (accessed February 5, 2002).
39. Singleton, V. 2005. Promise of public health: Vulnerable policy and lazy citizens. Society and Space 23:771-86.
40. Timmermans, S., and M. Berg. 1997. Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols. Social Studies of Science 27:273-305.
41. Weisbord, S.D., J.B. Soule, and P.L. Kimmel. 1997. Poison on line. Acute renal failure caused by oil of wormwood purchased through the internet. New England Journal of Medicine 337:825-27.
42. 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. British Medical Journal 324:598-600.
43. Wittgenstein, L. 1967. Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.