The role of quality tools in assessing reliability of the Internet for health information

Informatics for Health and Social Care

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 231-243

  Hanif, Faisal ^a   Read, Janet C ^b   Goodacre, John A ^c   Chaudhry, Afzal ^a   Gibbs, Paul ^a  

^a ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b Department of Computing ^*

^c UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Health information; Internet and websites; Kite marks; Quality tools

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; ACCURACY; CERTIFICATION; CONSULTATION; CONSUMER; DRUG TRAFFIC; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL PROFESSION; ONLINE SYSTEM; PRESCRIPTION; QUALITY CONTROL; RATING SCALE; READING; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; VALIDITY;

CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; HUMANS; INTERNET; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 70450164147     PISSN: 17538157     EISSN: 17538165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17538150903359030     Document Type: Review

References (90)

1. Millman A, Lee N, Kealy K. ABC of the medical computing internet. British Medical Journal 1995;311:440.
2. Fox S. Most internet users start at a search engine when looking for health information online. Very few check the source and date of the information they find [Internet]. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/ PIP-Online-Health-2006.pdf (accessed 7 March 2007).
3. Dutton WH, Gennaro C di, Hargrave AM. The Internet in Britain, The Oxford Internet Survey [Internet]. Available from: www.caribank.org/Secre.nsf/ Internetsurvey/$File/OxIS-2005-Internet-Survey.pdf? (accessed 20 May 2007).
4. Warm D. Welsh Source Health Information Online [Internet]. Available from: http://www.wales.nhs.uk/ihc/ page.cfm?pid=21058 (accessed 7 November 2007).
5. Fox S, Rainie L, Horrigan J, Lenhart A, Burke M, Lewis O, Carter C. The online health care revolution: How the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves [Internet]. Available from: www.pewinternet.org (accessed 5 May 2007).
6. Pamela CS. Factors driving the increase in medical information on the web - one American perspective. Journal of Medical Internet Research 1999;1:e3.
7. Reents S, Miller TE. The health care industry in transition - the online mandate to change [Internet]. Available from: http://www.cyberdialogue.com/free- data/white-papers/intel-health-day.html (accessed 5 May 2007). In: Cyber Dialogue; 1998.
8. Braddock CH, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: Time to get back to basics. Journal of American Medical Association 1999;282:2313-2320.
9. Kidney Support Group [Internet]. Available from: www. aarogya.com/SupportGroup/kidney/ (accessed 24 May 2007).
10. Kidney Transplant Forums [Internet]. Available from: www.medconsumer. info/topics/kidneytransplantforums. htm (accessed 24 May 2007).
11. Jerome LW DP, James L, Folen R, Earles J, Gedney JJ. The coming of age of telecommunications in psychological research and practice. American Psychologist 2000;55:407-421.
12. Glasgow RE MH, Boles SM, Vogt TM. Interactive technology, behavioral science, and family practice. Journal of Family Practice 1999;48:464-470.
13. Coiera E. The Internet's challenge to health care provision. British Medical Journal 1996;312:3-4.
14. Shepperd S, Charnock D, Gann B. Helping patients access high quality health information. British Medical Journal 1999;319:764-766.
15. Hjortdahl P. Informerte pasienter - til glede eller besvaer? Tidsskrift for Norske Laegeforening 1997;117:2604.
16. Hjortdahl P. Internett i konsultasjonen - duket for konflikt? Nord Med 1998;113:367-369.
17. Hjortdahl P, Nylenna M, Aasland OG. Internett og lege-pasient-forholdet - fra 'takk' til 'hvorfor'? Tidsskrift for Norske Laegeforening 1999;119:4339-4341.
18. Boyer C, Provost M, Baujard V. Health on the Net Foundation, highlights of the 8th HON Survey of Health and Medical Internet Users 2002 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.hon.ch/Survey/8th-HON-results.html (accessed 5 May 2007).
19. Greene DL, Appel AJ, Reinert SE, Palumbo MA. Lumbar disc herniation: evaluation of information on the internet. Spine 2005;30:826-829.
20. Bergman J, Konijeti R, Lerman SE. Myelomeningocele information on the internet is accessible and of variable quality, and requires a high reading level. Journal of Urology 2007;177:1138-1142.
21. Bohacek L, Gomez M, Fish JS. An evaluation of internet sites for burn scar management. The Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation 2003;24:246-251.
22. Tiller G, Rea S, Silla R, Wood F. Burns first aid information on the internet. Burns 2006;32:897-901.
23. International Organization for Standardization, Technical Committee ISO/TC 176. ISO 8402: Quality management and quality assurance Vocabulary. 2nd ed. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 1994.
24. Eysenbach G, Diepgen T. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. British Medical Journal 1998;317:1496-1500.
25. Silberg WM, Lunberg GD, Mussachio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor-let the reader and viewer beware. Journal of American Medical Association 1997;277:1244-1245.
26. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, Hunt KK, Ames FC, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, Pollock RE, Musen MA, Singletary SE. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. British Medical Journal 2002;324:577-581.
27. Touchet BK WJ, Yates WR, Wilkins KM. Evaluating the quality of websites offering information on female hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 2007;33:329-342.
28. Air M, Roman SA, Yeo H, Maser C, Trapasso T, Kinder B, Sosa JA. Outdated and incomplete: A review of thyroid cancer on the World Wide Web. Thyroid 2007;17:259-265.
29. Yeo H, Roman S, Air M, Maser C, Trapasso T, Kinder B, Sosa JA. Filling a void: Thyroid cancer surgery information on the internet. World Journal of Surgery 2007;31:1187-1193.
30. Gremeaux V, Coudeyre E, Givron P, Hérisson C, Pélissier J, Poiraudeau S, Bénaïm C. Qualitative evaluation of the expectations of low back pain patients with regard to information gained through semi-directed navigation on the Internet. Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique 2007;50:348-355.
31. Caron S, Berton J, Beydon L. Quality of anaesthesia-related information accessed via Internet searches. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007;99:195-201.
32. Liu Y, Liu M. Osteosarcoma: evaluation of information on the internet. Telemedicine Journal of e-Health 2006;12:542-545.
33. Culver M, Chadwick A. Internet information on rheumatoid arthritis: An evaluation. Musculoskeletal Care 2005;3:33-43.
34. Aeree S, Mee-Kyung S. Evaluating health information sites on the Internet in Korea: A cross-sectional survey. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 2001;13:S19-S22.
35. Pérez-López FR, Perez RG. Assessing the content and quality of information on the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis on the World Wide Web. Gynecological Endocrinology 2006;22:669-675.
36. McKinley J, Cattermole H, Oliver CW. The quality of surgical information on the Internet. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 1999;44:403.
37. Gordon JB, Barot LR, Fahey AL. The Internet as a source of information on breast augmentation. Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery 2001;107:171-176.
38. Kemper DW. About Hi-Ethics [Internet]. Available from: http://www.www.hiethics.com/About.asp%20 (accessed 21 August 2005).
39. Top9.com. Web ranking and search directories: Top 9 health, family and culture. January 2001 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.top9.com/01-2001/ health-family-culture/health-matters/health-care.html%20 (accessed 20 July 2005).
40. Ledbetter J. Is buying drugs on the web too easy? Industry Standard June 29, 1999 [Internet]. Available from: http://www5.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9906f/ 29/drugs.idg/ (accessed 14 April 2005).
41. Swinford S. Online doctors dole out drugs blind. July 9 2006 [Internet]. Available from: http:// www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article685021.ece (accessed 12 March 2007).
42. SAMHS A. Did you know you can buy marijuana on the Internet? Reality check, 2000 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.health.org/reality/ whatsnew2000/internet.htm (accessed 24 April 2005).
43. Lindberg DA. The National Library of Medicine's Website for physicians and patients. Journal of American Medical Association 2001;285:806.
44. Joshua JS, Donald S, Haya RR. Conceptual framework for a new tool for evaluating the quality of diabetes consumer-information web sites. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2003;5:e29.
45. Canadian Marketing Association. Code of ethics [Internet]. Available from: http://www.the-cma.org/ ?WCE=C=47%7CK=225849 (accessed 21 December 2006).
46. 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. Proceedings of AMIA Symposium 1999;911-915.
47. Delamothe T. Quality of websites: kite marking the west wind. British Medical Journal 2000;7:843-844.
48. Association AM. Code of ethics [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ama-assn.org/ (accessed 21 December 2006).
49. Health on the Net Foundation (HON). HON code of conduct (HONcode) for medical and health websites: Principles [Internet]. Available from: http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html (accessed 5 August 2004).
50. British Healthcare Internet Association. Quality standards for medical publishing on the web [Internet]. Available from: http://bhia.org/reference/ documents/recommend-Webquality.htm (accessed 3 November 2005).
51. American Health Information Management Association. AHIMA's recommendations to ensure privacy and quality of personal health information on the Internet. 2000. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ahima.org/ infocenter/guidelines/tenets.html (accessed 12 August 2004).
52. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Policies for posting biomedical journal information on the Internet. 2000 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/index.html#Internet. (accessed 12 February 2005).
53. Health Summit Working Group. Information quality tool 2000 [Internet]. Available from: http://HitiWeb. mitretek.org/iq/default.asp (accessed 12 February 2005).
54. DISCERN [Internet]. Available from: http://www.discern.org.uk (accessed 3 January 2006).
55. Quick. The quality information checklist [Internet]. Available from: http://www.quick.org.uk (accessed 12 February 2005).
56. New York Online Access to Health. NOAH [Internet]. Available from: http://www.noah-health.org (accessed 5 March 2005).
57. Woodruff RW. Health sciences Center Library of Emory University. MedWeb [Internet]. Available from: http:// www.medWeb.emory.edu/MedWeb (accessed 5 May 2004).
58. Netwellness, University of Cincinnati [Internet]. Available from: http://www.netwellness.org (accessed 12 February 2005).
59. InteliHealth. Harvard Medical School's consumer health information [Internet]. Available from: http:// www.intelihealth.com (accessed 12 February 2005).
60. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research [Internet]. Available from: http://www.mayohealth.org (accessed 5 May 2004).
61. Medical Matrix [Internet]. Available from: http://www.medmatrix.org/ index.asp (accessed 12 February 2005).
62. URAC. American Accreditation HealthCare Commission. Answers to frequently asked questions: What is the cost of accreditation? [Internet]. Available from: http://www.urac.org/Webfaq.htm (accessed 12 February 2005).
63. URAC. URAC and Hi-Ethics collaborate on health Website accreditation. May 21 2000 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.urac.org/010521Hi-EthicsURAC.htm (accessed 19 February 2005).
64. Eysenbach G, Yihune G, Lampe K, Cross P, Brickley D. MedCERTAIN: quality management, certification and rating of health information on the Net. Proceedings of AMIA Symposium 2000;230-234.
65. Baur C, Deering MJ. Proposed frameworks to improve the quality of health Websites: Review. MedGenMed 2000;26:e35.
66. Lundberg GD. The ethics of the medical internet: Medscape's advertising policy. MedGenMed 1999:e25.
67. Society of Professional Journalists. Code of ethics. 1996 September [Internet]. Available from: http://spj.org/ ethics (accessed 18 July 2004).
68. Hiti Web [Internet]. Available from: http://HitiWeb.mitretek.org/iq/ default.asp (accessed 12 February 2005).
69. DISCERN [Internet]. Available from: http://www.discern.org.uk (accessed 3 January 2006).
70. QUICK. The quality information checklist [Internet]. Available from: http://www.quick.org.uk (accessed 12 February 2005).
71. New York Online Access to Health (NOAH) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.noah-health.org (accessed 5 March 2005).
72. Woodruff RW. Health Sciences Center Library of Emory University. MedWeb [Internet]. Available from: http:// www.medWeb.emory.edu/MedWeb (accessed May 5 2004).
73. InteliHealth. Harvard Medical School's consumer health information [Internet]. Available from: http:// www.intelihealth.com (accessed 12 February 2005).
74. Medical Matrix [Internet]. Available from: http://www.medmatrix.org/ index.asp (accessed 12 February 2005).
75. Ebay [Internet]. Available from: http://search.reviews.ebay.com/novice (accessed 5 August 2006).
76. URAC (American Accreditation HealthCare Commission). Answers to frequently asked questions: What is the cost of accreditation? [Internet]. Available from: http://www.urac.org/Webfaq.htm (accessed 12 February 2005).
77. URAC (American Accreditation HealthCare Commission). URAC and Hi-Ethics collaborate on health Website accreditation. 21 May 2001 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.urac.org/010521Hi-EthicsURAC.htm (accessed 19 February 2005).
78. Noble H. Hailed as a Surgeon General, Koop is faulted on Web ethics. NewYork Times, 5 September 1999.
79. Sherrid P. What's up, Dr. Koop? The health care Website comes under fire. U.S. News. 20 September 1999 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.usnews.com/ usnews/issue/990920/koop.htm (accessed 14 February 2005).
80. Calacanis C. Drkoop.com's troubles continue: Class-action suits abound. IhealthcareWeekly.com. 8 August 2000 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ihealthcareweekly.com/issues/ihcw08082000.html (accessed 23 February 2005).
81. The Associated Press. Sealing the cookie jar: Citing privacy, drkoop.com ditches cookies. 12 February 2000 [Internet]. Available from: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/drkoop000212.html (accessed 14 February 2005).
82. Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, DeAngelis CD, Musacchio RA. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: Principles governing AMA Websites. Journal of American Medical Association 2000;283:1600-1606.
83. Rippen H, Risk A. e-health code of ethics. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2000;2:e9.
84. MedCERTAIN. Consensus workshop, Quality criteria for health related Websites: A foundation for rating and filtering health information. 2 August 2000 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.medcertain.org/English/ About-us/Consensus-Workshop/consensus-workshop.htm (accessed 17 February 2005).
85. Hi-Ethics, Inc. Health Internet ethics: ethical principles for offering Internet health services to consumers [Internet]. Available from: http://www.hiethics.org/Principles/index.asp (accessed 12 February 2005).
86. Hi-Ethics, Inc. Hi-Ethics releases ethical principles for the health Internet: Top health Websites agree on rules to earn public trust. 7 May 2000. Available from: http://www.hiethics.org/Press/Releases/000507.asp (accessed 13 September 2005).
87. Hanif F, Abayasekar K,Willcocks L, Jolly EC, Jamieson NV, Praseedom RK, Goodacre JA, Read JC. The quality of information about kidney transplantation on the World Wide Web. Clinical Transplantation 2007;21:371-376.
88. Edward JC. Health care web sites: Are they reliable? Journal of Medical Systems 2002;26:519-528.
89. Weinstein JN. The missing piece: embracing shared decision making to reform health care. Spine 2000;25:1-4.
90. Ullrich PF Jr, Vaccaro AR. Patient education on the internet: Opportunities and pitfalls. Spine 2002;27:e185-e188.