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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland) Ireland), 2005, Vol.74 (1), p.13-19
Hauptverfasser: Bernstam, Elmer V., Shelton, Dawn M., Walji, Muhammad, Meric-Bernstam, Funda
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