Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use?
To find and assess quality-rating instruments that can be used by health care consumers to assess websites displaying health information. Searches of PubMed, the World Wide Web (using five different search engines), reference tracing from identified articles, and a review of the of the American Medi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland) Ireland), 2005, Vol.74 (1), p.13-19 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 19 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 13 |
container_title | International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland) |
container_volume | 74 |
creator | Bernstam, Elmer V. Shelton, Dawn M. Walji, Muhammad Meric-Bernstam, Funda |
description | To find and assess quality-rating instruments that can be used by health care consumers to assess websites displaying health information.
Searches of PubMed, the World Wide Web (using five different search engines), reference tracing from identified articles, and a review of the of the American Medical Informatics Association's annual symposium proceedings.
Sources were examined for availability, number of elements, objectivity, and readability.
A total of 273 distinct instruments were found and analyzed. Of these, 80 (29%) made evaluation criteria publicly available and 24 (8.7%) had 10 or fewer elements (items that a user has to assess to evaluate a website). Seven instruments consisted of elements that could all be evaluated objectively. Of these seven, one instrument consisted entirely of criteria with acceptable interobserver reliability (kappa
≥
0.6); another instrument met readability standards.
There are many quality-rating instruments, but few are likely to be practically usable by the intended audience. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67338473</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1386505604002035</els_id><sourcerecordid>17522535</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-3525760eb6f4e25c789b8e009b1454c28c545c9e664042cb43274eeca88797d93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhiMEoqXwFyqfuGXrbztcAFVQKlXiAurRcpyJ1qsk3toOaP89s-wijpWs8WjmmXekeZvmmtENo0zf7DZxN8MQl3HDKZVY3FDKXjSXzBreWi7FS8yF1a2iSl80b0rZIWCokq-bC6Y011rwyybfL6XmdYalFlIT8aVAwWwL5Gn1U6wHkkayBT_VLcFtKc--xrQQfEfoMeVpII9xwBT6D-T31lcSPPbXTPaI_hX2oaLYdCBrgY9vm1ejnwq8O_9Xzc-vX37cfmsfvt_d335-aIPoTG2F4spoCr0eJXAVjO16C5R2PZNKBm6Dkip0oLWkkodeCm4kQPDWms4Mnbhq3p909zk9rVCqm2MJME1-gbQWp40QVmJ4DmRGca6EQlCfwJBTKRlGt89x9vngGHVHW9zO_bPFHW051vHqOHh93rD22P4_dvYBgU8nAPAgvyJkVwKeLqBUhlDdkOJzO_4A1PSh4g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17522535</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Bernstam, Elmer V. ; Shelton, Dawn M. ; Walji, Muhammad ; Meric-Bernstam, Funda</creator><creatorcontrib>Bernstam, Elmer V. ; Shelton, Dawn M. ; Walji, Muhammad ; Meric-Bernstam, Funda</creatorcontrib><description>To find and assess quality-rating instruments that can be used by health care consumers to assess websites displaying health information.
Searches of PubMed, the World Wide Web (using five different search engines), reference tracing from identified articles, and a review of the of the American Medical Informatics Association's annual symposium proceedings.
Sources were examined for availability, number of elements, objectivity, and readability.
A total of 273 distinct instruments were found and analyzed. Of these, 80 (29%) made evaluation criteria publicly available and 24 (8.7%) had 10 or fewer elements (items that a user has to assess to evaluate a website). Seven instruments consisted of elements that could all be evaluated objectively. Of these seven, one instrument consisted entirely of criteria with acceptable interobserver reliability (kappa
≥
0.6); another instrument met readability standards.
There are many quality-rating instruments, but few are likely to be practically usable by the intended audience.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1386-5056</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-8243</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15626632</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Humans ; Information Services - standards ; Internet ; Medical informatics ; Medical Informatics - standards ; Patient education ; Patient Education as Topic - standards ; Quality Control</subject><ispartof>International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland), 2005, Vol.74 (1), p.13-19</ispartof><rights>2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-3525760eb6f4e25c789b8e009b1454c28c545c9e664042cb43274eeca88797d93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-3525760eb6f4e25c789b8e009b1454c28c545c9e664042cb43274eeca88797d93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3549,4023,27922,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15626632$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bernstam, Elmer V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shelton, Dawn M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walji, Muhammad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meric-Bernstam, Funda</creatorcontrib><title>Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use?</title><title>International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland)</title><addtitle>Int J Med Inform</addtitle><description>To find and assess quality-rating instruments that can be used by health care consumers to assess websites displaying health information.
Searches of PubMed, the World Wide Web (using five different search engines), reference tracing from identified articles, and a review of the of the American Medical Informatics Association's annual symposium proceedings.
Sources were examined for availability, number of elements, objectivity, and readability.
A total of 273 distinct instruments were found and analyzed. Of these, 80 (29%) made evaluation criteria publicly available and 24 (8.7%) had 10 or fewer elements (items that a user has to assess to evaluate a website). Seven instruments consisted of elements that could all be evaluated objectively. Of these seven, one instrument consisted entirely of criteria with acceptable interobserver reliability (kappa
≥
0.6); another instrument met readability standards.
There are many quality-rating instruments, but few are likely to be practically usable by the intended audience.</description><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information Services - standards</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Medical informatics</subject><subject>Medical Informatics - standards</subject><subject>Patient education</subject><subject>Patient Education as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><issn>1386-5056</issn><issn>1872-8243</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhiMEoqXwFyqfuGXrbztcAFVQKlXiAurRcpyJ1qsk3toOaP89s-wijpWs8WjmmXekeZvmmtENo0zf7DZxN8MQl3HDKZVY3FDKXjSXzBreWi7FS8yF1a2iSl80b0rZIWCokq-bC6Y011rwyybfL6XmdYalFlIT8aVAwWwL5Gn1U6wHkkayBT_VLcFtKc--xrQQfEfoMeVpII9xwBT6D-T31lcSPPbXTPaI_hX2oaLYdCBrgY9vm1ejnwq8O_9Xzc-vX37cfmsfvt_d335-aIPoTG2F4spoCr0eJXAVjO16C5R2PZNKBm6Dkip0oLWkkodeCm4kQPDWms4Mnbhq3p909zk9rVCqm2MJME1-gbQWp40QVmJ4DmRGca6EQlCfwJBTKRlGt89x9vngGHVHW9zO_bPFHW051vHqOHh93rD22P4_dvYBgU8nAPAgvyJkVwKeLqBUhlDdkOJzO_4A1PSh4g</recordid><startdate>2005</startdate><enddate>2005</enddate><creator>Bernstam, Elmer V.</creator><creator>Shelton, Dawn M.</creator><creator>Walji, Muhammad</creator><creator>Meric-Bernstam, Funda</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2005</creationdate><title>Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use?</title><author>Bernstam, Elmer V. ; Shelton, Dawn M. ; Walji, Muhammad ; Meric-Bernstam, Funda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-3525760eb6f4e25c789b8e009b1454c28c545c9e664042cb43274eeca88797d93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information Services - standards</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Medical informatics</topic><topic>Medical Informatics - standards</topic><topic>Patient education</topic><topic>Patient Education as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bernstam, Elmer V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shelton, Dawn M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walji, Muhammad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meric-Bernstam, Funda</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bernstam, Elmer V.</au><au>Shelton, Dawn M.</au><au>Walji, Muhammad</au><au>Meric-Bernstam, Funda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use?</atitle><jtitle>International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland)</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Med Inform</addtitle><date>2005</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>74</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>13</spage><epage>19</epage><pages>13-19</pages><issn>1386-5056</issn><eissn>1872-8243</eissn><abstract>To find and assess quality-rating instruments that can be used by health care consumers to assess websites displaying health information.
Searches of PubMed, the World Wide Web (using five different search engines), reference tracing from identified articles, and a review of the of the American Medical Informatics Association's annual symposium proceedings.
Sources were examined for availability, number of elements, objectivity, and readability.
A total of 273 distinct instruments were found and analyzed. Of these, 80 (29%) made evaluation criteria publicly available and 24 (8.7%) had 10 or fewer elements (items that a user has to assess to evaluate a website). Seven instruments consisted of elements that could all be evaluated objectively. Of these seven, one instrument consisted entirely of criteria with acceptable interobserver reliability (kappa
≥
0.6); another instrument met readability standards.
There are many quality-rating instruments, but few are likely to be practically usable by the intended audience.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>15626632</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1386-5056 |
ispartof | International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland), 2005, Vol.74 (1), p.13-19 |
issn | 1386-5056 1872-8243 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67338473 |
source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Humans Information Services - standards Internet Medical informatics Medical Informatics - standards Patient education Patient Education as Topic - standards Quality Control |
title | Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T19%3A23%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Instruments%20to%20assess%20the%20quality%20of%20health%20information%20on%20the%20World%20Wide%20Web:%20what%20can%20our%20patients%20actually%20use?&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20medical%20informatics%20(Shannon,%20Ireland)&rft.au=Bernstam,%20Elmer%20V.&rft.date=2005&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=13&rft.epage=19&rft.pages=13-19&rft.issn=1386-5056&rft.eissn=1872-8243&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17522535%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17522535&rft_id=info:pmid/15626632&rft_els_id=S1386505604002035&rfr_iscdi=true |