The Quality of Online Health-Related Information – an Emergent Consumer Health Issue

Nădăşan, Valentin

doi:10.1515/amma-2016-0048

Abstract

The Internet has become one of the main means of communication used by people who search for health-related information. The quality of online health-related information affects the users’ knowledge, their attitude, and their risk or health behaviour in complex ways and influences a substantial number of users in their decisions regarding diagnostic and treatment procedures.

The aim of this review is to explore the benefits and risks associated with using the Internet as a source of health-related information; the relationship between the quality of the health-related information available on the Internet and the potential risks; the multiple conceptual components of the quality of health-related information; the evaluation criteria for quality health-related information; and the main approaches and initiatives that have been implemented worldwide to help improve users’ access to high-quality health-related information.

References

1. Sechrest RC. The Internet and the physician-patient relationship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(10):2566-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1440-3.10.1007/s11999-010-1440-3304963220574803
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1-2):24-8.10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.00616406474
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001;16(6):671-92.10.1093/her/16.6.67111780707
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. 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(20):2691-700.10.1001/jama.287.20.269112020305
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Kealey E, Berkman CS. The relationship between health information sources and mental models of cancer: findings from the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey. J Health Commun. 2010;15 Suppl 3:236-51. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.522693.10.1080/10810730.2010.52269321154096
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Zhang Y. Beyond quality and accessibility: Source selection in consumer health information searching. J Assn Inf Sci Tec. 2014;65:911–927. doi:10.1002/asi.2302310.1002/asi.23023
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. DiFonzo N, Robinson NM, Suls JM, Rini C. Rumors about cancer: content, sources, coping, transmission, and belief. J Health Commun. 2012;17(9):1099-115. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2012.665417.10.1080/10810730.2012.66541722724591
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Weaver III JB, Thompson NJ, Weaver SS, Hopkins GL. Healthcare non-adherence decisions and Internet health information. Computers in Human Behavior. 2009;25(6):1373-80.10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.011
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285(20):2612-21.10.1001/jama.285.20.2612418210211368735
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Catania J, Lee K, Zapert K, Turner R. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: national U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. Physicians. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3):e17.10.2196/jmir.5.3.e17155056414517108
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Hämeen-Anttila K1, Nordeng H, Kokki E, Jyrkkä J, Lupattelli A, Vainio K, Enlund H. Multiple information sources and consequences of conflicting information about medicine use during pregnancy: a multinational Internet-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e60. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2939.10.2196/jmir.2939
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Kata A. Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm--an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine. 2012;30(25):3778-89. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Gangarosa E, Galazka A, Wolfe C, Phillips L, Gangarosa R, Miller E, et al. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Lancet 1998;351(9099):356–61.10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04334-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Bhandari N, Shi Y, Jung K. Seeking health information online: does limited healthcare access matter? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(6):1113-7. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002350.10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002350421503824948558
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Fox S, Duggan M. Health Online 2013. Pew Internet Project. Online: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf Accessed: September 30, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2011. Online http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Social_Life_of_Health_Info.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Andreassen HK, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Chronaki CE, et al. European citizens’ use of E-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-53.10.1186/1471-2458-7-53185592317425798
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Euroepan Commission. Information society statistics. Eurostat. Sept. 2010 Online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed: June 14, 2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. TradeAds Interactive. Profilul utilizatorului de Internet – editia II. Bursa de reclamă. 2011. Online: http://blog.tradeads.eu/2011/01/31/profilul-utilizatorului-de-internet-editia-ii/ Accessed: January 31, 2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Institutul Român pentru Evaluare şi Strategie. Românii şi internetul. Studiu privind utilizarea Internetului şi comportamentul internautic al românilor. 2011. Online: http://www.ires.com.ro/uploads/articole/ires_romanii-si-internetul-2011_analiza.pdf. Accessed: October 1, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, Large S. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1600.10.2196/jmir.1600322134221345783
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Dart J, Gallois C, Yellowlees P. Community health information sources--a survey in three disparate communities. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(1):186-96.10.1071/AH080186
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Dutta-Bergman MJ. Health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors among Internet health information seekers: population-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(2):e15.10.2196/jmir.6.2.e15155059315249264
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Demiris G. Consumer Health Informatics: Past, Present, and Future of a Rapidly Evolving Domain. Yearb Med Inform. 2016;Suppl 1:S42-7. doi: 10.15265/IYS-2016-s005.10.15265/IYS-2016-s005517150927199196
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Houston TK, Ehrenberger HE. The potential of consumer health informatics. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2001;17(1):41-7.10.1053/sonu.2001.2041811236364
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Hoffmann D, Schwartz J. Stopping deceptive health claims: the need for a private right of action under federal law. Am J Law Med. 2016;42(1):53-84.10.1177/009885881664471527263263
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Dyer KA. Ethical challenges of medicine and health on the Internet: a review. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):E23.10.2196/jmir.3.2.e23176189311720965
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Unal B, Critchley JA, Capewell S. Missing, mediocre, or merely obsolete? An evaluation of UK data sources for coronary heart disease. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(7):530-5.10.1136/jech.57.7.530173250212821703
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. Rajani R, Mukherjee D, Chambers J. Murmurs: how reliable is information on the internet? Int J Cardiol. 2007;119(1):112-3.10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.06117049389
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. Ching T, Roake JA, Lewis DR. Net-based information on varicose vein treatments: a tangled web. N Z Med J. 2010;123(1323):9-15.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. Killeen S, Hennessey A, El Hassan Y, Killeen K, Clarke N, Murray K, Waldron B. Gastric cancer-related information on the Internet: incomplete, poorly accessible, and overly commercial. Am J Surg. 2011;201(2):171-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.015.10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.01520851373
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. Ream E, Blows E, Scanlon K, Richardson A. An investigation of the quality of breast cancer information provided on the internet by voluntary organisations in Great Britain. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(1):10-5. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.019.10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.01919179036
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, Hunt KK, Ames FC, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, Pollock RE, Musen MA, Singletary SE. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):577-81.10.1136/bmj.324.7337.5777899511884322
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
34. Ni Riordain R, McCreary C. Head and neck cancer information on the internet: type, accuracy and content. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(8):675-7. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.10.006.10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.10.00619095486
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
35. López-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F. The quality of internet sites providing information relating to oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(9):e95-8. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.017.10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.01719457707
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
36. Dulaney C, Barrett OC, Rais-Bahrami S, Wakefield D, Fiveash J, Dobelbower M. Quality of Prostate Cancer Treatment Information on Cancer Center Websites. Cureus. 2016;8(4):e580. doi: 10.7759/cureus.580.10.7759/cureus.580487600627226941
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
37. Lawrentschuk N, Abouassaly R, Hackett N, Groll R, Fleshner NE. Health information quality on the internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation. Urology. 2009;74(5):1058-63. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.091.10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.091
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
38. Minzer-Conzetti K, Garzon MC, Haggstrom AN, Horii KA, Mancini AJ, Morel KD, Newell B, Nopper AJ, Frieden IJ. Information about infantile hemangiomas on the Internet: how accurate is it? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57(6):998-1004.10.1016/j.jaad.2007.06.038
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
39. Pérez-López FR. An evaluation of the contents and quality of menopause information on the World Wide Web. Maturitas. 2004;49(4):276-82.10.1016/j.maturitas.2004.07.006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
40. 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):687-94.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.04.011
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
41. Thakurdesai PA, Kole PL, Pareek RP. Evaluation of the quality and contents of diabetes mellitus patient education on Internet. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53(3):309-13.10.1016/j.pec.2003.04.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
42. McGill JF, Moo TA, Kato M, Hoda R, Allendorf JD, Inabnet WB, Fahey TJ 3rd, Brunaud L, Zarnegar R, Lee JA. World wide what? The quality of information on parathyroid disease available on the Internet. Surgery. 2009;146(6):1123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.09.016.10.1016/j.surg.2009.09.016
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
43. Ostry A, Young ML, Hughes M. The quality of nutritional information available on popular websites: a content analysis. Health Educ Res. 2008;23(4):648-55.10.1093/her/cym050
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
44. Sutherland LA, Wildemuth B, Campbell MK, Haines PS. Unraveling the web: an evaluation of the content quality, usability, and readability of nutrition web sites. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005;37(6):300-5.10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60160-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
45. Nădăşan V, Moldovan G, Tarcea M, Ureche R. Edified or confused? How complete and accurate is the information about vitamin B12 on the Romanian Websites? Revista de Igienă şi Sănătate Publică, Timişoara 2011;61(4):49-57.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
46. Griffiths KM, Christensen H. Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2000;321(7275):1511-5.10.1136/bmj.321.7275.15112755511118181
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
47. Burneo JG. An evaluation of the quality of epilepsy education on the Canadian World Wide Web. Epilepsy Behav. 2006;8(1):299-302.10.1016/j.yebeh.2005.09.00816275110
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
48. Tench CM, Clunie GP, Dacre J, Peacock A. An insight into rheumatology resources available on the World Wide Web. Br J Rheumatol. 1998;37(11):1233-5.10.1093/rheumatology/37.11.1233
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
49. Lewiecki EM, Rudolph LA, Kiebzak GM, Chavez JR, Thorpe BM. Assessment of osteoporosis-website quality. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(5):741-52.10.1007/s00198-005-0042-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
50. Tiller G, Rea S, Silla R, Wood F. Burns first aid information on the Internet. Burns. 2006;32(7):897-901.10.1016/j.burns.2006.02.020
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
51. Butler DP, Perry F, Shah Z, Leon-Villapalos J. The quality of video information on burn first aid available on YouTube. Burns. 2013;39(5):856-9. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2012.10.017.10.1016/j.burns.2012.10.017
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
52. Nădăşan V, Vancea G, Georgescu AP, Tarcea M, Abram Z. The Credibility, Completeness and Accuracy of Information about First Aid in Case of Choking on the Romanian Websites. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2011;6(3):18-26.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
53. Morr S, Shanti N, Carrer A, Kubeck J, Gerling MC. Quality of information concerning cervical disc herniation on the Internet. Spine J. 2010;10(4):350-4. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.009.10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.009
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
54. Greene DL, Appel AJ, Reinert SE, Palumbo MA. Lumbar disc herniation: evaluation of information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(7):826-9.10.1097/01.brs.0000157754.98023.cd
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
55. Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, Sood V, Kubeck J, Paulino C, Merola AA. Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the Internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(23):2695-700.10.1097/01.brs.0000188266.22041.c2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
56. Soot LC, Moneta GL, Edwards JM. Vascular surgery and the Internet: a poor source of patient-oriented information. J Vasc Surg. 1999;30(1):84-91.10.1016/S0741-5214(99)70179-5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
57. Yermilov I, Chow W, Devgan L, Makary MA, Ko CY. What is the quality of surgery-related information on the internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(4):580-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.034.10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.03418926463
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
58. Nădăşan V, Voidăzan S, Tarcea M, Ureche R. The quality of information about influenza on the Romanian Internet. Acta Medica Transilvanica 2011;2(3):312-4.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
59. Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ 1997; 314:1875–81.10.1136/bmj.314.7098.187521269849224132
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
60. Nădăşan V, Moldovan O. The Completeness and Accuracy of Information about Coeliac Disease on the Romanian Websites. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2016;11(3):72-83.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
61. Lau AY, Gabarron E, Fernandez-Luque L, Armayones M. Social media in health--what are the safety concerns for health consumers? HIM J. 2012;41(2):30-5.10.1177/183335831204100204
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
62. Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(3):e23.10.2196/jmir.1056
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
63. Fullwood MD, Kecojevic A, Basch CH. Examination of YouTube videos related to synthetic cannabinoids. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2016;pii:/j/ijamh.ahead-of-print/ijamh-2016-0073/ijamh-2016-0073.xml. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2016-0073.10.1515/ijamh-2016-0073
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
64. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling and filtering of information, BMJ 1998;317:1496-1500.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
65. Ahlbrandt J, Brammen D, Majeed RW, Lefering R, Semler SC, Thun S, Walcher F, Röhrig R. Balancing the need for big data and patient data privacy--an IT infrastructure for a decentralized emergency care research database. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:750-4.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
66. López L, Green AR, Tan-McGrory A, King R, Betancourt JR. Bridging the digital divide in health care: the role of health information technology in addressing racial and ethnic disparities. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37(10):437-45.10.1016/S1553-7250(11)37055-9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
67. Domanski K, Kleinschmidt KC, Schulte JM, Fleming S, Frazee C, Menendez A, Tavakoli K. Two cases of intoxication with new synthetic opioid, U-47700. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2016:1-5. [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2016.120976310.1080/15563650.2016.120976327432224
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
68. Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA 2002;287(21),2869-71.10.1001/jama.287.21.286912038937
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
69. Food and Drug Administration. Consumer Health Information. FDA 101: Health Fraud Awareness. May 2009. Online: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ProtectYourself/HealthFraud/UCM167504.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
70. National Institute on Aging. Online Health Information: Can You Trust It? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. December 2014. Online: https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/publication/online-health-information. Accessed: September 15, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
71. National Cancer Institute. Using Trusted Resources. National Institutes of Health. March 2015. Online: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/managing-care/using-trusted-resources. Accessed: September 15, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
72. Jadad A, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the internet: navigation to knowledge or to Babel. JAMA 1998;279(8):611-4.10.1001/jama.279.8.6119486757
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
73. Gagliardi A, Jadad A. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 2002;324:569-73.10.1136/bmj.324.7337.5697899311884320
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
74. Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(1):13-9.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.00115626632
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
75. Wilson P. 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. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):598-602.10.1136/bmj.324.7337.598112251711884329
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
76. Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: a review. BMJ 1999; 318:647-9.10.1136/bmj.318.7184.6472777210066209
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
77. Walji M, Sagaram S, Sagaram D, Meric-Bernstam F, Johnson C, Mirza NQ, Bernstam EV. Efficacy of Quality Criteria to Identify Potentially Harmful Information: A Cross-sectional Survey of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Web Sites. J Med Internet Res 2004;6(2):e21.10.2196/jmir.6.2.e21155060015249270
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
78. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health related Websites. J Med Internet Res 2002;4(3):e15. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4.3.e1510.2196/jmir.4.3.e15176194512554546
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
79. Chiang MF, Cole RG, Gupta S, Kaiser GE, Starren JB. Computer and World Wide Web accessibility by visually disabled patients: problems and solutions. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50(4):394-405.10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.04.00415967193
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
80. Davis JJ. Disenfranchising the disabled: the inaccessibility of Internet-based health information. J Health Commun. 2002;7(4):355-67.10.1080/1081073029000170112356292
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
81. Oakland T, Lane HB. Language, Reading, and Readability Formulas: Implications for Developing and Adapting Tests. International Journal of Testing 2004;4(3):239-52.10.1207/s15327574ijt0403_3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
82. Leroy G, Helmreich S, Cowie JR, Miller T, Zheng W. Evaluating online health information: beyond readability formulas. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008:394-8.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
83. Kim H, Goryachev S, Rosemblat G, Browne A, Keselman A, Zeng-Treitler Q. Beyond surface characteristics: a new health text-specific readability measurement. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007:418-22.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
84. Leroy G, Miller T. A Balanced Approach to Health Information Evaluation: A Vocabulary-Based Naïve Bayes Classifier and Readability Formulas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2008;59:1409-19.10.1002/asi.20837
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
85. McInnes N, Haglund BJ. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011;36(4):173-89. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2010.542529.10.3109/17538157.2010.54252921332302
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
86. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1310-5.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
87. Stausberg J, Fuchs J, Hüsing J, Hirche H. Health care providers on the World Wide Web: quality of presentations of surgical departments in Germany. Med Inform Internet Med. 2001;26(1):17-24.10.1080/14639230010024348
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
88. Sillence E, Briggs P, Harris PR, Fishwick L. A framework for understanding trust factors in web-based health advice. Int J Human-Computer Studies. 2006 64(8):697-713.10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.007
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
89. Health On the Net Foundation. The HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites. Online: http://www.hon.ch/Global/index.html. Accesed: September 15, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
90. iHealthCoalition. eHealth Code of Ethics. Online: http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/ehealth-code-of-ethics/. Accessed: September 15, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
91. Kemper DW. Hi-Ethics: Tough principles for earning consumer trust. URAC/Internet Healthcare Coalition. 2001. Online: http://www.imaginologia.com.br/dow/manual/Hi-Ethics.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
92. Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet: Principles governing AMA websites. JAMA 2000;283:1600–16.10.1001/jama.283.12.1600
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
93. International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations. IFPMA Code Of Practice 2012. Online: http://www.lif.se/globalassets/etik/dokument/ifpma_code_of_practice_2012.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
94. DISCERN. Background. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/background_to_discern.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
95. Net Scoring: criteria to assess the quality of Health Internet information. Online: http://www.chu-rouen.fr/netscoring/netscoringeng.html. Accessed: October 05.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
96. Boulos MNK, Roudsari AV, Gordon C, Gray JAM. The Use of Quality Benchmarking in Assessing Web Resources for the Dermatology Virtual Branch Library of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) J Med Internet Res 2001;3(1):e5.10.2196/jmir.3.1.e5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
97. Eysenbach G. Design and evaluation of consumer health information websites. In: Lewis D, Eysenbach G, Kukafka R, Jimison H, Stavri Z (eds.): Consumer Health Informatics. Springer New York 2005.10.1007/0-387-27652-1_4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
98. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission – URAC. Accreditation Programs - What is URAC’s Health Web Site Accreditation? Online: https://www.urac.org/accreditation-and-measurement/accreditation-programs/all-programs/health-web-site/. Accessed: October 05.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
99. Risk A, Dzenowagis J. Review Of Internet Health Information Quality Initiatives. J Med Internet Res 2001;3(4):e28. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3.4.e2810.2196/jmir.3.4.e28
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
100. Intute: Medicine including dentistry. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/medicine/. Accessed: 24.06.2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
101. U.S. National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. About MedlinePlus. Online: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/aboutmedlineplus.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
102. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONcodeHunt. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Patients/hunt.html, and http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/hunt.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
103. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONselect. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Patients/honselect.html and http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/honselect.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
104. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/MedHunt. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/medhunt.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
105. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONmedia. Online: http://services.hon.ch/cgi-bin/HONmedia. Accessed: October.05.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
106. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About healthfinder.gov Online: https://healthfinder.gov/aboutus/. Accessed: October.05.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
107. U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed, Online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/. Accessed: October.05.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
108. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions. How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2002. Online: http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/05/22/vital-decisions-a-pew-internet-health-report/ Accessed: October 15, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
109. Griffiths KM, Tang TT, Hawking D, Christensen H. Automated Assessment of the Quality of Depression Websites J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e59.10.2196/jmir.7.5.e59
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
110. Wang Y, Liu Z. Automatic detecting indicators for quality of health information on the Web. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(8):575-82.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.04.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
111. Aphinyanaphongs Y, Fu LD, Aliferis CF. Identifying unproven cancer treatments on the health web: addressing accuracy, generalizability and scalability. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:667-71.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
112. MedCIRCLE. Collaboration for Internet Rating, Certification, Labeling and Evaluation of Health Information. Online: http://www.medcircle.org/about.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
113. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites. Comput Biol Med. 1998;28(5):603-10.10.1016/S0010-4825(98)00037-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
114. Health On the Net Foundation, he HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites (HONcode). Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Patients/Conduct.html. Accessed: October 5, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
115. Health On the Net Foundation, The services offered by HON. Online: http://www.hon.ch/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
116. DISCERN - About this site. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/about.php Accessed: October 5, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
117. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1999;53:105-11.10.1136/jech.53.2.105175683010396471
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
118. Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 2004;19:440-6.10.1093/her/cyg04615155597
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
119. Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Coquard O, Fernandez S, Khan R, Billieux J, Zullino D. Brief DISCERN, six questions for the evaluation of evidence-based content of health-related websites. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(1):33-7.10.1016/j.pec.2009.02.01619372023
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
120. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC). About URAC. Online: http://www.urac.org/about/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
121. Overview of URAC’s Health Web Site Accreditation Review. Online: http://www.urac.org/consumers/overview.aspx. Accessed: 26.06.2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
122. Intute / Frequently asked questions. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/faq.html. Accessed: June 27, 2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
123. Eysenbach G, Yihune G, Lampe K, Cross P, Brickley D. Quality management, certification and rating of health information on the Net with MedCERTAIN: using a medPICS/RDF/XML metadata structure for implementing eHealth ethics and creating trust globally. J Med Internet Res. 2000;2(2 Suppl):2E1.10.2196/jmir.2.suppl2.e1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
124. World Health Organization. WHO proposal would raise quality of internet health information. Press Release WHO/72 November 13, 2000. Online: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-72.html. Accessed: June 26, 2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
125. Solomonides AE, Mackey TK. Emerging ethical issues in digital health information. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24(3):311-22. doi: 10.1017/S0963180114000632.10.1017/S096318011400063226059957
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
126. Mackey TK, Eysenbach G, Liang BA, Kohler JC, Geissbuhler A, Attaran A. A call for a moratorium on the .health generic top-level domain: preventing the commercialization and exclusive control of online health information. Global Health. 2014;10:62. doi: 10.1186/s12992-014-0062-z.10.1186/s12992-014-0062-z417706125283176
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
127. Mackey TK, Liang BA, Kohler JC, Attaran A. Health domains for sale: the need for global health Internet governance. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):e62. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3276.10.2196/jmir.3276396180824598602
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
128. Alexandru A, Ianculescu M, Jitaru E, Pârvan M. Edusan – Sistem complex integrat privind educaţia pentru sănătate şi profilaxie. Revista Română de Informatică şi Automatică. 2006;16(4).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
129. Nădăşan V – O evaluare a calității informațiilor medicale din spațiul virtual românesc, Teză de doctorat, Universitatea de Medicină şi Farmacie Tîrgu Mureş, Nov. 2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
130. Nădăşan V, Ancuceanu R, Tarcea M, Grosar CM, Ureche R. General characteristics of the Romanian Medical Webscape. Acta Medica Marrisiensis 2011;57(2):94-7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

The Quality of Online Health-Related Information – an Emergent Consumer Health Issue

Abstract

Paradigm

My account