Your patient information website: How good is it?

Colorectal Disease

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2012, Pages

  Soobrah, R ^a   Clark, S K ^a  

^a ST MARK S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Familial adenomatous polyposis; Internet; Readability; Reliability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONTENT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FAMILIAL COLON POLYPOSIS; FLESCH READING EASE SCORE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTERNET; LIDA TOOL; MEDICAL INFORMATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; PATIENT INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; WEB BROWSER;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ADENOMATOUS POLYPOSIS COLI; CERTIFICATION; COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; INTERNET; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC;

EID: 84856719864     PISSN: 14628910     EISSN: 14631318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02792.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Risk A, Petersen C. Health information on the internet: quality issues and international initiatives. JAMA 2002; 287: 2713-5.
2. Office for National Statistics Bulletin. Internet Access: Households and Individuals. (accessed August 2010).
3. Fox S, Jones S. The Social Life of Health Information. (accessed August 2010).
4. Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA 1998; 279: 611-14.
5. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2691-700.
6. Neuman HB, Robbins L, Duarte J et al. Risk-reducing surgery in FAP: role for surgeons beyond the incision. J Surg Oncol 2010; 101: 570-6.
7. Fritzell K, Persson C, Björk J, Hultcrantz R, Wettergren L. Patients' views of surgery and surveillance for familial adenomatous polyposis. Cancer Nurs 2010; 33: E17-23.
8. Nielsen MegaView Search. Top 10 U.S. Search Provider. (accessed September 2010).
9. 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: 573-7.
10. LIDA. Minervation Validation Instrument for Healthcare Websites. (accessed July 2010).
11. Henry SL. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) - Introduction to Web accessibililty. (accessed August 2010).
12. Chisholm W, Vanderheiden G, Jacobs I. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. (accessed August 2010).
13. Zeng X, Petersen C. Evaluation of web accessibility of consumer health information websites. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; 743-7.
14. Klare GR. (1963) The Measurement of Readability. Iowa State University Press, Iowa.
15. DuBay WH. (2007) Smart Language: Readers, Readability, and The Grading Of Text. BookSurge Publishing, South Carolina.
16. The HON Code of Conduct for Medical and Health Web Sites (HONcode). (accessed August 2010).
17. Morahan-Martin JM. How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. Cyberpsychol Behav 2004; 7: 497-510.
18. Gottlieb S. Health information on internet is often unreliable. BMJ 2000; 321: 136.
19. Robinson TN, Patick K, Eng TR, Gustafson D. An evidence-based approach to interactive health communication: a challenge to medicine in the information age. Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health. JAMA 1998; 280: 1264-9.
20. Rippen H, Risk A. e-Health Code of Ethics (May 24). J Med Internet Res 2000; 2: e9.
21. Saraiya DS, Vu TM, Askew RL, Peterson SK, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Lynch PM. A Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) patient education conference and its impact on patients and families. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2010; 8(Suppl 1): P20.
22. Chen X, Siu LL. Impact of the media and the internet on oncology: survey of cancer patients and oncologists in Canada. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 4291-7.
23. 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: 2618-24.
24. Biermann JS, Galloday GJ, Greenfield ML, Baker LH. Evaluation of cancer information on the Internet. Cancer 1999; 86: 381-90.
25. Chalmers I. Invalid health information is potentially lethal. BMJ 2001; 322: 998.
26. Purcell GP, Wilson P, Delamothe T. The quality of health information on the internet. BMJ 2002; 324: 557-8.
27. Gagliardi A, Jadad AR. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 2002; 324: 569-73.
28. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet. JAMA 1997; 277: 1244-5.
29. Wyatt JC. Commentary: measuring quality and impact of the world wide web. BMJ 1997; 314: 1879.
30. Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review. BMJ 1999; 318: 647-9.
31. Maley C, Baum N. Getting to the top of Google: search engine optimization. J Med Pract Manage 2010; 25: 301-3.