Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Quality of Online Health-Related Information – an Emergent Consumer Health Issue Cover

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

Open Access
|Dec 2016

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 18. Euroepan Commission. Information society statistics. Eurostat. Sept. 2010 Online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed: June 14, 2011.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 25. Houston TK, Ehrenberger HE. The potential of consumer health informatics. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2001;17(1):41-7.10.1053/sonu.2001.2041811236364
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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.
  59. 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
  60. 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.
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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.
  65. 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.
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. 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.
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. 80. Davis JJ. Disenfranchising the disabled: the inaccessibility of Internet-based health information. J Health Commun. 2002;7(4):355-67.10.1080/1081073029000170112356292
  81. 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
  82. 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.
  83. 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.
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 86. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1310-5.
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. 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.
  90. 90. iHealthCoalition. eHealth Code of Ethics. Online: http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/ehealth-code-of-ethics/. Accessed: September 15, 2016.
  91. 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.
  92. 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
  93. 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.
  94. 94. DISCERN. Background. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/background_to_discern.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.
  95. 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.
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. 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.
  99. 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
  100. 100. Intute: Medicine including dentistry. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/medicine/. Accessed: 24.06.2011.
  101. 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.
  102. 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.
  103. 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.
  104. 104. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/MedHunt. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/medhunt.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.
  105. 105. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONmedia. Online: http://services.hon.ch/cgi-bin/HONmedia. Accessed: October.05.2016.
  106. 106. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About healthfinder.gov Online: https://healthfinder.gov/aboutus/. Accessed: October.05.2016.
  107. 107. U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed, Online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/. Accessed: October.05.2016.
  108. 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.
  109. 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
  110. 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
  111. 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.
  112. 112. MedCIRCLE. Collaboration for Internet Rating, Certification, Labeling and Evaluation of Health Information. Online: http://www.medcircle.org/about.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.
  113. 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
  114. 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.
  115. 115. Health On the Net Foundation, The services offered by HON. Online: http://www.hon.ch/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.
  116. 116. DISCERN - About this site. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/about.php Accessed: October 5, 2016.
  117. 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
  118. 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
  119. 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
  120. 120. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC). About URAC. Online: http://www.urac.org/about/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.
  121. 121. Overview of URAC’s Health Web Site Accreditation Review. Online: http://www.urac.org/consumers/overview.aspx. Accessed: 26.06.2011.
  122. 122. Intute / Frequently asked questions. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/faq.html. Accessed: June 27, 2011.
  123. 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
  124. 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.
  125. 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
  126. 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
  127. 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
  128. 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).
  129. 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.
  130. 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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/amma-2016-0048 | Journal eISSN: 2668-7763 | Journal ISSN: 2668-7755
Language: English
Page range: 408 - 421
Submitted on: Oct 7, 2016
|
Accepted on: Oct 12, 2016
|
Published on: Dec 30, 2016
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2016 Valentin Nădăşan, published by University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.