Preventive Nutrition and Food Science

The Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition (한국식품영양과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Determining Quality Criteria for Online Health Information: A Qualitative Study

  • Published : 2006.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Web is an important source of information for health care consumers, and the resources they find on the Web have a direct affect on their health outcomes. Despite the enormous benefits of online health care, the quality of health information on the Internet is an area of increasing concern. Therefore, there's a need to develop quality assessment tools that can filter out poor quality online health information. The purpose of this study is to explore the critical attributes for assessing website quality and for developing quality assessment measurements. We completed three focus group discussions with 24 participants that were administered by a moderator and based on specifically focused group questions. The results suggest that the most important quality criteria, as identified by the respondents, were related to issues of credibility and accuracy. To determine the credibility of Internet health information, the respondents stated one must consider the following: the information source, disclosure of the author's or organization's credentials/qualifications, disclosure of ownership and the updating of the content. For the accuracy of content, elements such as a statement of purpose, evidence-based information, relevance and completeness should be considered. Interactivity, accessibility, and design were additional quality criteria.

Keywords

References

  1. Fox S. 2005. Health information online. Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/ (accessed October 5, 2006)
  2. Fox S, Rainie L. 2002. Vital decision: How internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet and American life project.  http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/59/report_display.asp (accessed October 5, 2006)
  3. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. 2002. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc 287: 2691-2700 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.20.2691
  4. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Allel RD. 1998. The health on the net code conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 28: 603-610 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4825(98)00037-7
  5. Wilson P. 2002. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet. Br Med J 324: 598-602 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.598
  6. HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) for medical and health Web sites. http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html (accessed October 5, 2006)
  7. Health Information Technology Institute of Mitretek Systems. Health Summit Working Group: Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the internet-policy paper. http://hitiweb.mitretek.org/docs/criteria. htm (accessed October 5, 2006)
  8. Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. 2005. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: What can our patients actually use? Inter J Med Infor 74: 13-19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001
  9. Perez-Lopez FR. 2004. An evaluation of the contents an quality of contents and quality of menopause information on the World Wide Web. Eur Menopause J 49: 276-282
  10. Thakurdesai PA, Kole PL, Pareek RP. 2004. Evaluation of the quality and contents of diabetes mellitus patient education on Internet. Patient Edu Counseling 53: 309-313 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2003.04.001
  11. Fricke M, Fallis D, Jones M, Luszko GM. 2005. Consumer health information on the internet about carpel tunnel syndrome: Indicators of accuracy. Am J Med 118: 168-174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.04.032
  12. Lee SY, Kim JH, Paik HY, Ji GE, Pi JE, Hwang YK, Kim SH. 2001. Development of criteria to assess the quality of food and nutrition information on internet. J Kor Home Econo Assoc 39: 51-63
  13. Sohn AR. 2000. Criteria for evaluation health information sites on the internet. J Kor Soc Health Stat 25: 97-107
  14. Kang HK, Kan MH, Yu KH, Ly SY. 2004. Monitoring of on-line nutrition information-analysis of meta data. Korean J Nutr 37: 688-700
  15. Kitzinger J. 1995. Qualitative research. Introducing focus group. Br Med J 311: 299-302 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
  16. Gagliardi A, Jadad AR. 2005. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. Br Med J 324: 569-572
  17. Rigby M, Forsstrom J, Roberts R, Wyatt J. 2001. Verifying quality and safety in health informatics services. Br Med J 323: 552-556 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7312.552