Elmer V Bernstam1, Dawn M Shelton, Muhammad Walji, Funda Meric-Bernstam. 1. School of Health Information Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 7000 Fannin Street, Suite 600, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Elmer.V.Bernstam@uth.tmc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To find and assess quality-rating instruments that can be used by health care consumers to assess websites displaying health information. DATA SOURCES: 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. REVIEW METHODS: Sources were examined for availability, number of elements, objectivity, and readability. RESULTS: 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> or =0.6); another instrument met readability standards. CONCLUSIONS: There are many quality-rating instruments, but few are likely to be practically usable by the intended audience.
OBJECTIVE: To find and assess quality-rating instruments that can be used by health care consumers to assess websites displaying health information. DATA SOURCES: 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. REVIEW METHODS: Sources were examined for availability, number of elements, objectivity, and readability. RESULTS: 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> or =0.6); another instrument met readability standards. CONCLUSIONS: There are many quality-rating instruments, but few are likely to be practically usable by the intended audience.
Authors: Maria del Carmen Conesa Fuentes; Enrique Aguinaga Ontoso; Juan José Hernández Morante Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Jaime Jiménez Pernett; Jose Francisco García Gutiérrez; Clara Bermúdez Tamayo; Martha Milena Silva Castro; Laura Tuneu i Valls Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2009-05-22 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Vishalli Ghai; Vasilios Pergialiotis; Haider Jan; James M N Duffy; Stergios K Doumouchtsis Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.894