scholarly journals Consumer Evaluation of the Quality of Online Health Information: Systematic Literature Review of Relevant Criteria and Indicators (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yalin Sun ◽  
Yan Zhang ◽  
Jacek Gwizdka ◽  
Ciaran B. Trace
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Information Quality ◽  
Quality Evaluation ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Consumer Evaluation ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
User Groups

BACKGROUND As the quality of online health information remains questionable, there is a pressing need to understand how consumers evaluate this information. Past reviews identified content-, source-, and individual-related factors that influence consumer judgment in this area. However, systematic knowledge concerning the evaluation process, that is, why and how these factors influence the evaluation behavior, is lacking. OBJECTIVE This review aims (1) to identify criteria (rules that reflect notions of value and worth) that consumers use to evaluate the quality of online health information and the indicators (properties of information objects to which criteria are applied to form judgments) they use to support the evaluation in order to achieve a better understanding of the process of information quality evaluation and (2) to explicate the relationship between indicators and criteria to provide clear guidelines for designers of consumer health information systems. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed in seven digital reference databases including Medicine, Psychology, Communication, and Library and Information Science to identify empirical studies that report how consumers directly and explicitly describe their evaluation of online health information quality. Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. A qualitative content analysis was performed to identify quality evaluation criteria, indicators, and their relationships. RESULTS We identified 25 criteria and 165 indicators. The most widely reported criteria used by consumers were trustworthiness, expertise, and objectivity. The indicators were related to source, content, and design. Among them, 114 were positive indicators (entailing positive quality judgments), 35 were negative indicators (entailing negative judgments), and 16 indicators had both positive and negative quality influence, depending on contextual factors (eg, source and individual differences) and criteria applied. The most widely reported indicators were site owners/sponsors; consensus among multiple sources; characteristics of writing and language; advertisements; content authorship; and interface design. CONCLUSIONS Consumer evaluation of online health information is a complex cost-benefit analysis process that involves the use of a wide range of criteria and a much wider range of quality indicators. There are commonalities in the use of criteria across user groups and source types, but the differences are hard to ignore. Evidently, consumers’ health information evaluation can be characterized as highly subjective and contextualized, and sometimes, misinformed. These findings invite more research into how different user groups evaluate different types of online sources and a personalized approach to educate users about evaluating online health information quality.

A Tool for Quantifying the Quality of Online Health Information on Student Health Center Websites (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anagha Kulkarni ◽  
Mike Wong ◽  
Tejasvi Belsare ◽  
Risha Shah ◽  
Diana Yu Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Health Center ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Information Quality ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Student Health ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Student Health Center

BACKGROUND The Internet has become a major source of health information especially for adolescents and young adults. Unfortunately, inaccurate, incomplete or outdated health information is widespread online. Often adolescents and young adults turn to authoritative websites such as the student health center (SHC) website of the university they are attending to obtain reliable health information. Although most on-campus SHC clinics comply with the American College Health Association (ACHA) standards, their websites are not subject to any standards or code of conduct. In the absence of quality standards or guidelines, the monitoring and compliance processes do not exist for SHC websites either. As such, there is no oversight on the health information published on the SHC websites by any central governing body. OBJECTIVE Our objective is to enable researchers to monitor online information quality at scale. We have created a tool that can efficiently quantify the quality of information posted on SHC websites about a health topic. Specifically, this quantitative tool provides information on quality, such as reading ease, coverage of the topic, and the degree of fact-based objective information. METHODS Our cross-functional team has designed and developed an open-source software, QMOHI: Quantitative Measures of Online Health Information, using the Agile software development methodology. The QMOHI tool finds the SHC website and gathers information on the specific health topic of interest from a prespecified list of university websites. Based on the retrieved text, the tool computes eight different quality metrics. The QMOHI tool is a fully automated tool that is designed to be scalable, generalizable, and robust. RESULTS The first empirical evaluation shows that the QMOHI tool is highly scalable and substantially more efficient than the manual approach of assessing online information quality. The second experimental results demonstrate QMOHI’s ability to work effectively with starkly different health topics (COVID, Cancer, LARC, and Condom) and with narrowly focused topics (hormonal IUD and copper IUD); thereby establishing the generalizability and versatility of the tool. The results from the last experiment demonstrate that QMOHI is not vulnerable to typical structural changes that SHC websites may undergo (e.g. URL changes) over a long period of time. QMOHI is able to support longitudinal studies by being robust to such website changes. CONCLUSIONS QMOHI allows public health researchers and practitioners to conduct large-scale studies of SHC websites that were previously too time intensive. The capability to generalize broadly or focus narrowly allows for wide applications of QMOHI, equipping researchers to study both mainstream and underexplored health topics. QMOHI’s ability to robustly analyze SHC websites periodically facilitates longitudinal investigations and monitor SHC progress. QMOHI serves as a launching pad for our future work that aims to develop a broadly applicable public health tool for online health information studies with potential applications far beyond SHC websites.

scholarly journals Improving Information Quality Requirements for Online Health Information Systems: A Review on the Previous Frameworks

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. 3663-3669
Author(s):  
Mohamed Aden Ighe ◽  
Siti Asma Mohammed ◽  
Azlin Nordin ◽  
Noor Azizah Mohamadali
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Information Quality ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
System Development ◽  
Technical Aspect ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Quality Requirements ◽  
Actual Use

Access to online health information has increased tremendously as it gives patients competency to find answers related to their health. The value of online health information is strongly depends on the quality of the information provided to the users. However, there are evidences that some online health information portals provide poor quality of information, due to the exclusion of information quality requirements in the early stages of the system development process. The objective of this research is to review existing frameworks that capture information quality requirements and to select a framework that is appropriate for the research. A total of six frameworks were searched and analyzed from various sources. The findings show that most frameworks focus more on technical aspect when capturing information quality requirements rather than the human aspect, which is the actual use of the information by the users. This research provide some insights to the health practitioners and system developers about the importance of capturing information quality at the early stage of system development based on actual information use.

A new tool for assessing the quality of online health information on the McMaster Optimal Aging Portal

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Dobbins ◽  
Susannah Watson ◽  
Kristin Read ◽  
Kelly Graham ◽  
Reza Yousefi Nooraie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Optimal Aging

scholarly journals Using the Google™ Search Engine for Health Information: Is There a Problem? Case Study: Supplements for Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah C Cai ◽  
Leanne E King ◽  
Johanna T Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Search Engine ◽  
Information Quality ◽  
Nutrition Information ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Search Results ◽  
Health And Nutrition ◽  
Quality Rating

ABSTRACT We assessed the quality of online health and nutrition information using a Google™ search on “supplements for cancer”. Search results were scored using the Health Information Quality Index (HIQI), a quality-rating tool consisting of 12 objective criteria related to website domain, lack of commercial aspects, and authoritative nature of the health and nutrition information provided. Possible scores ranged from 0 (lowest) to 12 (“perfect” or highest quality). After eliminating irrelevant results, the remaining 160 search results had median and mean scores of 8. One-quarter of the results were of high quality (score of 10–12). There was no correlation between high-quality scores and early appearance in the sequence of search results, where results are presumably more visible. Also, 496 advertisements, over twice the number of search results, appeared. We conclude that the Google™ search engine may have shortcomings when used to obtain information on dietary supplements and cancer.

scholarly journals Protocol paper for the ‘Harnessing resources from the internet to maximise outcomes from GP consultations (HaRI)’ study: a mixed qualitative methods study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e024188
Author(s):  
Maureen Seguin ◽  
Laura Hall ◽  
Helen Atherton ◽  
Rebecca Barnes ◽  
Geraldine Leydon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Patient Questionnaires ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Use Of The Internet ◽  
Questionnaire Studies

IntroductionMany patients now turn to the internet as a resource for healthcare information and advice. However, patients’ use of the internet to manage their health has been positioned as a potential source of strain on the doctor–patient relationship in primary care. The current evidence about what happens when internet-derived health information is introduced during consultations has relied on qualitative data derived from interview or questionnaire studies. The ‘Harnessing resources from the internet to maximise outcomes from GP consultations (HaRI)’ study combines questionnaire, interview and video-recorded consultation data to address this issue more fully.Methods and analysisThree data collection methods are employed: preconsultation patient questionnaires, video-recorded consultations between general practitioners (GP) and patients, and semistructured interviews with GPs and patients. We seek to recruit 10 GPs practising in Southeast England. We aim to collect up to 30 patient questionnaires and video-recorded consultations per GP, yielding up to 300. Up to 30 patients (approximately three per participating GP) will be selected for interviews sampled for a wide range of sociodemographic characteristics, and a variety of ways the use of, or information from, the internet was present or absent during their consultation. We will interview all 10 participating GPs about their views of online health information, reflecting on their own usage of online information during consultations and their patients’ references to online health information. Descriptive, conversation and thematic analysis will be used respectively for the patient questionnaires, video-recorded consultations and interviews.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the London–Camden & Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee. Alongside journal publications, dissemination activities include the creation of a toolkit to be shared with patients and doctors, to guide discussions of material from the internet in consultations.

scholarly journals Does the packaging of health information affect the assessment of its reliability? A randomized controlled trial protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Leela Raj ◽  
Denise Smith ◽  
James Heilman
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
University Campuses ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Significant Difference

Background Wikipedia is frequently used as a source of health information. However, the quality of its content varies widely across articles. The DISCERN tool is a brief questionnaire developed in 1996 by the Division of Public Health and Primary Health Care of the Institute of Health Sciences of the University of Oxford. They claim it provides users with a valid and reliable way of assessing the quality of written information. However, the DISCERN instrument’s reliability in measuring the quality of online health information, particularly whether or not its scores are affected by reader biases about specific publication sources, has not yet been explored. Methods This study is a double-blind randomized assessment of a Wikipedia article versus a BMJ literature review using a modified version of the DISCERN tool. Participants will include physicians and medical residents from four university campuses in Ontario and British Columbia and will be randomized into one of four study arms. Inferential statistics tests (paired t-test, multi-level ordinal regression, and one-way ANOVA) will be conducted with the data collected from the study. Outcomes The primary outcome of this study will be to determine whether a statistically significant difference in DISCERN scores exists, which could suggest whether or not how health information is packaged influences how it is assessed for quality. Plain Language Summary The internet, and in particular Wikipedia, is an important way for professionals, students and the public to obtain health information. For this reason, the DISCERN tool was developed in 1996 to help users assess the quality of the health information they find. The ability of DISCERN to measure the quality of online health information has been supported with research, but the role of bias has not necessarily been accounted for. Does how the information is packaged influence how the information itself is evaluated? This study will compare the scores assigned to articles in their original format to the same articles in a modified format in order to determine whether the DISCERN tool is able to overcome bias. A significant difference in ratings between original and inverted articles will suggest that the DISCERN tool lacks the ability to overcome bias related to how health information is packaged.

Quality of Health Information on the Internet

2009 ◽  
pp. 443-455
Author(s):  
Kleopatra Alamantariotou
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Information Quality ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
The Internet ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Use Of The Internet ◽  
Effective Use

Recent statistics show that the World Wide Web has now grown to over 100 million sites: a phenomenal expansion in only 15 years (Mulligan 2007). It has been estimated that there are 100,000 sites offering health related information (Wilson 2002). As the amount of health information increases, the public find it increasingly difficult to decide what to accept and what to reject (Burgess 2007). Searching for information on the internet is both deceptively easy and the same time frustratingly difficult (Kiley 2002). The challenge for consumers is to find high quality, relevant information as quickly as possible. There has been ongoing debate about the quality of information aimed at patients and the general public and opinions differ on how it can be improved (Stepperd 1999). The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the different perspectives on information quality and to review the main criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the internet. Pointers are provided to enable both clinicians and patients find high quality information sources. An understanding of these issues should help health professionals and patients to make effective use of the internet.

Web-Based Information for Patients and Providers

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-33
Author(s):  
Izabella Lejbkowicz
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Web Sites ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
World Population ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Access To Health ◽  
The Impact

The exponential development of Information Technologies revolutionized healthcare. A significant aspect of this revolution is the access to health information in the Internet. The Internet World Stats estimates that 56.8% of the world population used the Internet in March 2019, an increase of 1,066% from 2000. According to The Pew Research Center survey of 2012 81% of Americans used the internet and 72% of them searched for health information. Even though there is a lack in more recent data on the percentage of online health information seekers, it is clear that this trend is on the rise. This chapter focuses on the characteristics of the search for online health information by patients and providers, investigates features related to the quality of health web sites, and discusses the impact of these searches on healthcare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document