Modular semiquantitative quality assessment of ophthalmic health information on the internet reproducibility and correlation between different assessment categories;Modulare semiquantitative qualitätsbewertung augenheilkundlicher gesundheitsinformationen im internet reproduzierbarkeit und korrelation zwischen verschiedenen bewertungskategorien

Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde

Volumn 226, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 664-671

  Schalnus, R ^a   Meyer, C ^b   Hoppe, T ^a   Luchtenberg M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL FRANKFURT   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Content; Health information; Internet; Ophthalmology; Quality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; EYE CARE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; SEARCH ENGINE; VALIDITY; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; EDUCATION; EVALUATION; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; METHODOLOGY; OPHTHALMOLOGY; STATISTICS;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERNET; OPHTHALMOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 70350453980     PISSN: 00232165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1109373     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Aktionsforum Gesundheitsinformationssystem (afgis) e.V. Afgis-Qualitätskriterien und Afgis-Qualitätslogoverfahren. http://www.afgis.de/qualitaetslogoverfahren/quali-transparenz-html/; Stand: 19.12.2008
2. Al-Bahrani A, Plusa S. The quality of patient-orientated internet information on colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2004 6 323-326
3. Ball D E., Tisocki K, Herxheimer A. Advertising and disclosure of funding on patient organisation websites: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health 2006 6 201
4. Baur C, Deering M J. Proposed frameworks to improve the quality of health web sites. Med Gen Med 2000 2 E35
5. Berland G K., Elliott M N., Morales L S. et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 2001 285 2612-2621
6. Beverley C A., Bath P A., Booth A. Health information needs of visually impaired people: a systematic review of the literature. Health Soc Care Community 2004 12 1-24
7. BITV-Test. http://www.bitvtest.de; Stand: 19.12.2008
8. Breckons M, Jones R, Morris J et al. What do evaluation instruments tell us about the quality of complementary medicine information on the internet? J Med Internet Res 2008 10 (1) e3
9. Bush N E., Bowen D J., Wooldridge J et al. What do we mean by Internet access? A framework for health researchers. Prev Chronic Dis 2004 1 A15
10. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999 53 105-111
11. Chiang M F., Starren J. Evaluation of consumer health website accessibility by users with sensory and physical disabilities. Medinfo 2004 11 1128-1132
12. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 1968 70 213-220
13. Croft D R., Peterson M W. An evaluation of the quality and contents of asthma education on the World Wide Web. Chest 2002 121 1301-1307
14. eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health related Websites. J Med Internet Res 2002 4 (3) e15 http://www.jmir.org/ 2002 / 3 /e15 /; Stand: 12.12.2008
15. England C Y., Nicholls A M. Advice available on the Internet for people with coeliac disease: an evaluation of the quality of websites. J Hum Nutr Diet 2004 17 547-559
16. 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
17. Eysenbach G, Yihune G, Lampe K et al. MedCERTAIN: quality management, certification and rating of health information on the Net. Proc AMIA Symp 2000 230-234
18. Fox S. Health Information Online. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP- Healthtopics-May05.pdf; Stand: 20.12.2008
19. Fox S. Online Health Search 2006: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC, October 2006. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP-Online- Health-2006.pdf; Stand: 20.11.2008
20. Gagliardi A, Jadad A R. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 2002 324 (7337) 558-559
21. Henry S L., Brewer J. WAI Mission and Organization. http://www.w3.org/ WAI/about.html; Stand: 12.12.2008
22. HON: The Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct. Geneva: Health on the Net Foundation. http://www.hon.ch/HONcode; Stand: 10.12.2008
23. International Organization for Standardization. DIN EN ISO 9241. Genf 2006. http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm; Stand: 4.12.2008
24. Jadad A R., Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA 1998 279 611-614
25. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Primer on indicator development and application. Oakbrook Terrace. 1991: JCAHO. http://www.jointcommission.org/; Stand: 27.11.2008
26. Kim P, Eng T R., Deering M J. et al. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites. BMJ 1999 318 647-649
27. Kushniruk A W., Patel C, Patel V L. et al. Televaluation of clinical information systems: an integrative approach to assessing Web-based systems. IJMI 2001 61 45-70
28. Landis J R., Koch G G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977 33 159-174
29. Lüchtenberg M, Hoppe T, Ohrloff C et al. Zugänglichkeit von Informationsangeboten über Augenerkrankungen im Internet für sehbehinderte Nutzer. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2008 225 (12) 1075-1083
30. Lüchtenberg M, Kuhli-Hattenbach C, Sinangin Y et al. Accessibility of Health Information on the Internet to the Visually Impaired User. Ophthalmologica 2008 222 (3) 187-193
31. Lüchtenberg M, Ohrloff C, Schalnus R. Transparency of Information on Eye Diseases on the Internet. Ophthalmologica 2008 223 (3) 145-154
32. Mack R, Nielsen J. Executive Summary. Nielsen J, Mack RL Usability Inspection Methods New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc 1994 1-24
33. Maloney S, Ilic D, Green S. Accessibility, nature and quality of health information on the Internet: a survey on osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005 44 382-385
34. Martins E N., Morse L S. Evaluation of internet websites about retinopathy of prematurity patient education. Br J Ophthalmol 2005 89 565-568
35. Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation. Nielsen J, Mack RL Usability Inspection. Methods New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc 1994 25-62
36. Nielsen J. Jakob Nielsens Alertbox. Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Fremont, USA Nielsen Norman Group 2003 http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ 20 030 825.html; Stand: 10.12.2008
37. Norman F. Organizing medical networked information (OMNI). Med Inform 1998 23 43-51
38. Pennekamp P H., Kraft C N., Engelhardt L V. et al. Quality analysis of internet information on epicondylitis radialis humeri. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2006 144 (2) 218-222
39. Rubin H R., Pronovost P von, Diette G B. From a process of care to a measure: the development and testing of a quality indicator. Int J Qual Health Care 2001 13 489-496
40. Sambandam S N., Ramasamy V, Priyanka P et al. Quality analysis of patient information about knee arthroscopy on the World Wide Web. Arthroscopy 2007 23 509-513
41. Sänger S, Nickel J, Huth A et al. Well-informed on health matters how well? The German Clearinghouse for Patient Information objective, background and methods. Gesundheitswesen 2002 64 391-397
42. Saithna A, Ajayi O O., Davis E T. The quality of Internet sites providing information relating to hip resurfacing. Surgeon 2008 6 85-87
43. Sawyer P, Flanders A, Wixon D. Making a difference the impact of inspections. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Proceedings of the ACM 1996 375-382
44. Schalnus R. Operationalisierung von Qualitätskriterien zu Angeboten im Gesundheitssport im Rahmen des Qualitätssiegels Sport pro Gesundheit. Wydra G, Winchenbach H, Schwarz M, Pfeifer K Assessmentverfahren im Gesundheitssport. Messen, Testen, Bewerten, Beurteilen Schriften der Deutschen Vereinigung für Sportwissenschaft 2006 158 38-43
45. Schalnus R, Aulmann G, Ohrloff C et al. Content quality of Ophthalmic Information on the Internet. Ophthalmologica 2009, im Druck
46. Schalnus R, Heinemann K, Romero R et al. Userorientierte Bewertung medizinischer Websites. Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Medizin und Biologie 2001 32 267
47. Schriver K A. Evaluating Text Quality: The Continuum From Text-Focused to Reader-Focused Methods. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 1989 32 238-255
48. Schweibenz W, Thissen F. Qualität im Web Benutzerfreundliche Webseiten durch Usability Evaluation. Berlin Springer Verlag 2003
49. Sens B, Fischer B. Begriffe und Konzepte des Qualitätsmanagements. Inform Biom Epidemiol Med Biol 2003 34 (1) 1-64
50. Wilson P. 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 2002 324 (7337) 598-602
51. Winker M A., Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites, American Medical Association. JAMA 2000 283 1600-1606
52. World Wide Web Consortium. Checklist of Checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10 /full-checklist.html; Stand: 12.12.2008
53. Zeng X, Parmanto B. Web content accessibility of consumer health information web sites for people with disabilities: a cross sectional evaluation. J Med Internet Res 2004 6 e19