A Methodology to Analyze the Quality of Health Information on the Internet: The Example of Diabetic Neuropathy

The Diabetes Educator

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 95-105

  Chumber, Sundeep ^a   Huber, Jörg ^b   Ghezzi, Pietro ^a  

^a BRIGHTON AND SUSSEX MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DIABETIC NEPHROPATHY; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; INTERNET; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEARCH ENGINE; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES;

CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DIABETIC NEPHROPATHIES; HUMANS; INTERNET; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEARCH ENGINE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84921690106     PISSN: 01457217     EISSN: 15546063     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0145721714560772     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Fox S, Jones S. Health Online 2013. Pew Research Center. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online.aspx. Accessed June 2, 2014.
2. Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2011.
3. Fox S, Jones S. The Social Life of Health Information. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2009.
4. Fox S. Search engines. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/07/03/search-engines. Accessed June 2, 2014.
5. Hider PN, Griffin G, Walker M, Coughlan E. The information-seeking behavior of clinical staff in a large health care organization. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97(1):47-50.
6. Falagas ME, Ntziora F, Makris GC, Malietzis GA, Rafailidis PI. Do PubMed and Google searches help medical students and young doctors reach the correct diagnosis? A pilot study. Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20(8):788-790.
7. Nalliah S, Chan SL, Ong CL et al. Effectiveness of the use of Internet search by third year medical students to establish a clinical diagnosis. Singapore Med J. 2010;51(4):332-338.
8. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285(20):2612-2621.
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(7337):573-577.
10. Lee C, Gray S, Lewis N. Internet use leads cancer patients to be active health care consumers. Patient Educ Couns. 2010(81)(suppl):S63-S69.
11. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244-1245.
12. Net Hot. The HON code of conduct for medical and health web sites (HONcode). http://www.hon.ch. Accessed June 2, 2014.
13. Lustria MLA. Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. J Am Soc Info Sci Tech. 2007;58(6):766-776.
14. McInnes N, Haglund BJ. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011;36(4):173-189.
15. Leroy G, Helmreich S, Cowie JR, Miller T, Zheng W. Evaluating online health information: beyond readability formulas. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008;2008:394-398.
16. Wagner T, Baker L, Bundorf M, Singer S. Use of the Internet for health information by the chronically ill. Pre Chronic Dis. 2004;1(4):A13.
17. Haviland MG, Pincus HA, Dial TH. Type of illness and use of the Internet for health information. Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54(9):1198.
18. Bedell SE, Agrawal A, Petersen LE. A systematic critique of diabetes on the World Wide Web for patients and their physicians. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73(9-10):687-694.
19. Hansberry DR, Suresh R, Agarwal N, Heary RF, Goldstein IM. Quality assessment of online patient education resources for peripheral neuropathy. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2013;18(1):44-47.
20. Health On the Net Foundation. The HON code of conduct for medical and health web sites (HONcode). February 4, 2013. http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html. Accessed February 10, 2013.
21. Teach L. Health-related web site evaluation form. Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University. http://www.sph.emory.edu/WELLNESS/instrument.html. Accessed February 12, 2013.
22. Peterlin BL, Gambini-Suarez E, Lidicker J, Levin M. An analysis of cluster headache information provided on Internet websites. Headache. 2008;48(3):378-384.
23. Martins EN, Morse LS. Evaluation of Internet websites about retinopathy of prematurity patient education. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(5):565-568.
24. Zeldman J. Taking Your Talent to the Web: A Guide for the Transitioning Designer. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing; 2001.
25. Alexa. The top 500 sites on the web. http://www.alexa.com/topsites. Accessed November 3, 2012.
26. Lerner EB, Jehle DV, Janicke DM, Moscati RM. Medical communication: do our patients understand? Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18(7):764-766.
27. King A. Website Optimization. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly; 2008.
28. Neumark Y, Flum L, Lopez-Quintero C, Shtarkshall R. Quality of online health information about oral contraceptives from Hebrew-language websites. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012;1(1):38.
29. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ et al. Breast cancer on the World Wide Web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):577-581.
30. Laversin S, Baujard V, Gaudinat A, Simonet MA, Boyer C. Improving the transparency of health information found on the Internet through the honcode: a comparative study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:654-658.
31. Ni Riordain R, McCreary C. Head and neck cancer information on the Internet: type, accuracy and content. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(8):675-677.
32. Lopez-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F. The quality of Internet sites providing information relating to oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(9):e95-e98.
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(3):382-385.