V P Abbott1. 1. Department of Public Health, North West Lancashire Health Authority, Wesham Park Hospital.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to report exploratory findings from an attempt to quantify the quality of a sample of World Wide Web (WWW) pages relating to MMR vaccine that a typical user might locate. METHOD: Forty pages obtained from a search of the WWW using two search engines and the search expression 'mmr vaccine' were analysed using a standard proforma. The proforma looked at the information the pages contained in terms of three categories: content, authorship and aesthetics. The information from each category was then quantified into a summary statistic, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated using a 'gold standard' of quality derived from the published literature. Optimal cut-off points for each of the three sections were calculated that best discriminated 'good' from 'bad' pages. Pages were also assessed as to whether they were pro- or anti-vaccination. RESULTS: For this sample, the combined contents and authorship score, with a cut-off of five, was a good discriminator, having 88 per cent sensitivity and 92 per cent specificity. Aesthetics was not a good discriminator. In the sample, 32.5 per cent of pages were pro-vaccination; 42.5 per cent were anti-vaccination and 25 per cent were neutral. The relative risk of being of poor quality if anti-vaccination was 3.3 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.8, 6.1). CONCLUSION: The sample of Web pages did contain some quality information on MMR vaccine. It also contained a great deal of misleading, inaccurate data. The proforma, combined with a knowledge of the literature, may help to distinguish between the two.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to report exploratory findings from an attempt to quantify the quality of a sample of World Wide Web (WWW) pages relating to MMR vaccine that a typical user might locate. METHOD: Forty pages obtained from a search of the WWW using two search engines and the search expression 'mmr vaccine' were analysed using a standard proforma. The proforma looked at the information the pages contained in terms of three categories: content, authorship and aesthetics. The information from each category was then quantified into a summary statistic, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated using a 'gold standard' of quality derived from the published literature. Optimal cut-off points for each of the three sections were calculated that best discriminated 'good' from 'bad' pages. Pages were also assessed as to whether they were pro- or anti-vaccination. RESULTS: For this sample, the combined contents and authorship score, with a cut-off of five, was a good discriminator, having 88 per cent sensitivity and 92 per cent specificity. Aesthetics was not a good discriminator. In the sample, 32.5 per cent of pages were pro-vaccination; 42.5 per cent were anti-vaccination and 25 per cent were neutral. The relative risk of being of poor quality if anti-vaccination was 3.3 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.8, 6.1). CONCLUSION: The sample of Web pages did contain some quality information on MMR vaccine. It also contained a great deal of misleading, inaccurate data. The proforma, combined with a knowledge of the literature, may help to distinguish between the two.