Alison Cooke1, Lisa Gray. 1. BIOME, Greenfield Medical Library, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH. ac@biome.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to develop guidelines for evaluating the quality of Internet-based information about alternative therapies. METHOD: An expert committee drafted a set of guidelines for evaluating information relating to alternative therapies. The guidelines were subsequently refined by testing them using resources already included in the BIOME databases. The first 20 unique web sites about alternative therapies for cancer retrieved using a general search engine and a United Kingdom focused search engine were then evaluated using the refined guidelines. Those undertaking the evaluations also completed a questionnaire relating to the face and content validity of the guidelines. The participants in the implementation stage were six content providers. Content providers identify, evaluate and describe resources for inclusion in the BIOME databases. RESULTS: Only one web site out of 20 was selected by all six content providers for inclusion in the BIOME databases according to the alternative therapies guidelines. All content providers were in agreement regarding the exclusion of nine sites, but there were discrepancies regarding the remaining 10 resources. There was general agreement that the guidelines were easy to understand and that all points raised were necessary. However, there were differences of opinion regarding whether all issues were covered, whether the guidelines allowed the selection of only the highest quality resources, and whether the guidelines were applicable to a wide range of Internet-based resources about alternative therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The levels of inconsistencies in the results indicate the need for the further development of the BIOME guidelines for selecting information about alternative therapies.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to develop guidelines for evaluating the quality of Internet-based information about alternative therapies. METHOD: An expert committee drafted a set of guidelines for evaluating information relating to alternative therapies. The guidelines were subsequently refined by testing them using resources already included in the BIOME databases. The first 20 unique web sites about alternative therapies for cancer retrieved using a general search engine and a United Kingdom focused search engine were then evaluated using the refined guidelines. Those undertaking the evaluations also completed a questionnaire relating to the face and content validity of the guidelines. The participants in the implementation stage were six content providers. Content providers identify, evaluate and describe resources for inclusion in the BIOME databases. RESULTS: Only one web site out of 20 was selected by all six content providers for inclusion in the BIOME databases according to the alternative therapies guidelines. All content providers were in agreement regarding the exclusion of nine sites, but there were discrepancies regarding the remaining 10 resources. There was general agreement that the guidelines were easy to understand and that all points raised were necessary. However, there were differences of opinion regarding whether all issues were covered, whether the guidelines allowed the selection of only the highest quality resources, and whether the guidelines were applicable to a wide range of Internet-based resources about alternative therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The levels of inconsistencies in the results indicate the need for the further development of the BIOME guidelines for selecting information about alternative therapies.