Relative quality of internet-derived gastrointestinal cancer information

Journal of Cancer Education

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 676-679

  Chan, David S Y ^a   Willicombe, Anita ^a   Reid, Thomas D ^a   Beaton, Ceri ^a   Arnold, David ^b   Ward, James ^b   Davies, I Llion ^a   Lewis, Wyn G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF WALES   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cancer; Internet

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FACTUAL DATABASE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NEOPLASM; PATIENT EDUCATION; STANDARD;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION SERVICES; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE;

EID: 84876294017     PISSN: 08858195     EISSN: 15430154     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13187-012-0408-2     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Anderson PF, Allee N, Grove S, Hill S (1999) The University of Michigan Consumer Health Website Evaulation Checklist. www-personal.umich.edu/pfa/ mlaguide/free/webeval.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2012
2. Bader JL, Theofanos MF (2003) Searching for cancer information on the internet: analyzing natural language search queries. J Med Internet Res 5(4):e31. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5.4.e31
3. Breckons M, Jones R, Morris J, Richardson J (2008) What do evaluation instruments tell us about the quality of complementary medicine information on the internet? J Med Internet Res 10(1):e3. doi: 10.2196/jmir.961
4. Castleton K, Fong T, Wang-Gillam A, Waqar MA, Jeffe DB, Kehlenbrink L, Gao F, Govindan R (2011) A survey of Internet utilization among patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer 19(8):1183-1190. doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-0935-5
5. Eysenbach G, Kohler Ch (2003) What is the prevalence of health-related searches on the World Wide Web? Qualitative and quantitative analysis of search engine queries on the internet. AMIA Annu Symp Proc:225-229
6. Goto Y, Sekine I, Sekiguchi H, Yamada K, Nokihara H, Yamamoto N, Kunitoh H, Ohe Y, Tamura T (2009) Differences in the quality of information on the internet about lung cancer between the United States and Japan. J Thorac Oncol 4(7):829-833. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a76fe1
7. Health Improvement Institute and Consumer Reports Web Watch. 2003. A report on the evaluation of criteria sets for assessing health web sites. http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/health-report-assessing-health-sites- abstract.cfm. Accessed 16 May 2012
8. McHugh SM, Corrigan M, Morney N, Sheikh A, Lehane E, Hill AD (2011) A quantitative assessment of changing trends in internet usage for cancer information. World J Surg 35(2):253-257. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0830-8
9. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, Hunt KK, Ames FC, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, Pollock RE, Musen MA, Singletary SE (2002) Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ 324(7337):577-581
10. Moran M, Oliver CW (2007) Content and design of patient-targeted websites in orthopaedic surgery: the example of total hip replacement. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 89:773-776. doi: 10.1308/003588407X209293
11. Sajid MS, Iftikhar M, Monteiro RS, Miles AF, Woods WG, Baig MK (2008) Internet information on colorectal cancer: commercialization and lack of quality control. Colorectal Dis 10(4):352-356. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01316.x
12. SearchEngineWatch.com. 2012. Search Engine Watch. http:// searchenginewatch.com. Accessed 16 May 2012
13. UK Cancer Research. 2012. Cancer research UK. http://www. cancerresearchuk.org. Accessed 16 May 2012