Zachary Frangos1, Maryke Steffens1, Julie Leask1,2. 1. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Internet has transformed the way in which people approach their health care, with online resources becoming a primary source of health information. Little work has assessed the quality of online information regarding community water fluoridation. This study sought to assess the information available to individuals searching online for information, with emphasis on the credibility and quality of websites. METHODS: We identified the top 10 web pages returned from different search engines, using common fluoridation search terms (identified in Google Trends). Web pages were scored using a credibility, quality and health literacy tool based on Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GAVCS) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. Scores were compared according to their fluoridation stance and domain type, then ranked by quality. The functionality of the scoring tool was analysed via a Bland-Altman plot of inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Five-hundred web pages were returned, of which 55 were scored following removal of duplicates and irrelevant pages. Of these, 28 (51%) were pro-fluoridation, 16 (29%) were neutral and 11 (20%) were anti-fluoridation. Pro, neutral and anti-fluoridation pages scored well against health literacy standards (0.91, 0.90 and 0.81/1 respectively). Neutral and pro-fluoridation web pages showed strong credibility, with mean scores of 0.80 and 0.85 respectively, while anti-fluoridation scored 0.62/1. Most pages scored poorly for content quality, providing a moderate amount of superficial information. CONCLUSION: Those seeking online information regarding water fluoridation are faced with comprehensible, yet poorly referenced, superficial information. Sites were credible and user friendly; however, our results suggest that online resources need to focus on providing more transparent information with appropriate figures to consolidate the information.
BACKGROUND: The Internet has transformed the way in which people approach their health care, with online resources becoming a primary source of health information. Little work has assessed the quality of online information regarding community water fluoridation. This study sought to assess the information available to individuals searching online for information, with emphasis on the credibility and quality of websites. METHODS: We identified the top 10 web pages returned from different search engines, using common fluoridation search terms (identified in Google Trends). Web pages were scored using a credibility, quality and health literacy tool based on Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GAVCS) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. Scores were compared according to their fluoridation stance and domain type, then ranked by quality. The functionality of the scoring tool was analysed via a Bland-Altman plot of inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Five-hundred web pages were returned, of which 55 were scored following removal of duplicates and irrelevant pages. Of these, 28 (51%) were pro-fluoridation, 16 (29%) were neutral and 11 (20%) were anti-fluoridation. Pro, neutral and anti-fluoridation pages scored well against health literacy standards (0.91, 0.90 and 0.81/1 respectively). Neutral and pro-fluoridation web pages showed strong credibility, with mean scores of 0.80 and 0.85 respectively, while anti-fluoridation scored 0.62/1. Most pages scored poorly for content quality, providing a moderate amount of superficial information. CONCLUSION: Those seeking online information regarding water fluoridation are faced with comprehensible, yet poorly referenced, superficial information. Sites were credible and user friendly; however, our results suggest that online resources need to focus on providing more transparent information with appropriate figures to consolidate the information.
Authors: Bradford W Hesse; David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Robert T Croyle; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; Kasisomayajula Viswanath Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005 Dec 12-26
Authors: Funda Meric; Elmer V Bernstam; Nadeem Q Mirza; Kelly K Hunt; Frederick C Ames; Merrick I Ross; Henry M Kuerer; Raphael E Pollock; Mark A Musen; S Eva Singletary Journal: BMJ Date: 2002-03-09