Linda Y Fu1, Kathleen Zook2, Zachary Spoehr-Labutta3, Pamela Hu3, Jill G Joseph4. 1. Center for Translational Science, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC; Goldberg Center for Community Pediatric Health, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC; The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. Electronic address: lfu@childrensnational.org. 2. Goldberg Center for Community Pediatric Health, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC. 3. The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. 4. Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Online information can influence attitudes toward vaccination. The aim of the present study was to provide a systematic evaluation of the search engine ranking, quality, and content of Web pages that are critical versus noncritical of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. METHODS: We identified HPV vaccine-related Web pages with the Google search engine by entering 20 terms. We then assessed each Web page for critical versus noncritical bias and for the following quality indicators: authorship disclosure, source disclosure, attribution of at least one reference, currency, exclusion of testimonial accounts, and readability level less than ninth grade. We also determined Web page comprehensiveness in terms of mention of 14 HPV vaccine-relevant topics. RESULTS: Twenty searches yielded 116 unique Web pages. HPV vaccine-critical Web pages comprised roughly a third of the top, top 5- and top 10-ranking Web pages. The prevalence of HPV vaccine-critical Web pages was higher for queries that included term modifiers in addition to root terms. Compared with noncritical Web pages, Web pages critical of HPV vaccine overall had a lower quality score than those with a noncritical bias (p < .01) and covered fewer important HPV-related topics (p < .001). Critical Web pages required viewers to have higher reading skills, were less likely to include an author byline, and were more likely to include testimonial accounts. They also were more likely to raise unsubstantiated concerns about vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Web pages critical of HPV vaccine may be frequently returned and highly ranked by search engine queries despite being of lower quality and less comprehensive than noncritical Web pages.
PURPOSE: Online information can influence attitudes toward vaccination. The aim of the present study was to provide a systematic evaluation of the search engine ranking, quality, and content of Web pages that are critical versus noncritical of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. METHODS: We identified HPV vaccine-related Web pages with the Google search engine by entering 20 terms. We then assessed each Web page for critical versus noncritical bias and for the following quality indicators: authorship disclosure, source disclosure, attribution of at least one reference, currency, exclusion of testimonial accounts, and readability level less than ninth grade. We also determined Web page comprehensiveness in terms of mention of 14 HPV vaccine-relevant topics. RESULTS: Twenty searches yielded 116 unique Web pages. HPV vaccine-critical Web pages comprised roughly a third of the top, top 5- and top 10-ranking Web pages. The prevalence of HPV vaccine-critical Web pages was higher for queries that included term modifiers in addition to root terms. Compared with noncritical Web pages, Web pages critical of HPV vaccine overall had a lower quality score than those with a noncritical bias (p < .01) and covered fewer important HPV-related topics (p < .001). Critical Web pages required viewers to have higher reading skills, were less likely to include an author byline, and were more likely to include testimonial accounts. They also were more likely to raise unsubstantiated concerns about vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Web pages critical of HPV vaccine may be frequently returned and highly ranked by search engine queries despite being of lower quality and less comprehensive than noncritical Web pages.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Sharon J M Kessels; Helen S Marshall; Maureen Watson; Annette J Braunack-Mayer; Rob Reuzel; Rebecca L Tooher Journal: Vaccine Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Jessica Hughes; Joan R Cates; Nicole Liddon; Jennifer S Smith; Sami L Gottlieb; Noel T Brewer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: David B Buller; Barbara J Walkosz; Julia Berteletti; Sherry L Pagoto; Jessica Bibeau; Katie Baker; Joel Hillhouse; Kimberly L Henry Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Amy P Worrall; Mary J Connolly; Aine O'Neill; Murray O'Doherty; Kenneth P Thornton; Cora McNally; Samuel J McConkey; Eoghan de Barra Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 3.295