Jiasian Teh1,2,3,4, Joe Wei1, Glen Chiang1, Tatenda C Nzenza1,2,3, Damien Bolton1,4, Nathan Lawrentschuk5,6,7,8. 1. Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 2. Young Urology Researchers Organisation (YURO), Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Australia. 5. Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. lawrentschuk@gmail.com. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. lawrentschuk@gmail.com. 7. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Australia. lawrentschuk@gmail.com. 8. Department of Urology, Austin Hospital, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Melbourne, VIC, 3084, Australia. lawrentschuk@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Men's health research covers a broad range of topics. Men and women face different barriers to health, with men almost universally having a lower life expectancy than women. Access to high-quality information on men's health topics is potentially an important part of engaging men with medical services. We aim to assess the quality of men's health resources available on the internet across 4 developed countries using a tier-based rating system as well as the World Health Organisation Health on the Net (HON) standards. METHODS: The Google search engine imbedded with the Health on the Net toolbar was used to assess 357 websites across Australia, Canada, America and United Kingdom using the search term 'men's health'. The websites were further subdivided into 3 tiers by 2 independent investigators, with tier 1 websites defined as government or health organisation sponsored, tier 2 websites defined as being sponsored by health services such as private clinics and insurance providers, and tier 3 websites being websites that did not meet criteria for the first 2 tiers. RESULTS: Overall, 28% of websites were rated as tier 1, 26% as tier 2 and 46% as tier 3. The HONcode accreditation was overall 39% of tier 1 websites. The majority of websites reviewed were in the tier 3 category, and 35% of overall websites being non-health or non-medically related. DISCUSSION: The lack of 'relevant' and HONcode-accredited websites relating to men's health should be appreciated by health care professionals.
INTRODUCTION:Men's health research covers a broad range of topics. Men and women face different barriers to health, with men almost universally having a lower life expectancy than women. Access to high-quality information on men's health topics is potentially an important part of engaging men with medical services. We aim to assess the quality of men's health resources available on the internet across 4 developed countries using a tier-based rating system as well as the World Health Organisation Health on the Net (HON) standards. METHODS: The Google search engine imbedded with the Health on the Net toolbar was used to assess 357 websites across Australia, Canada, America and United Kingdom using the search term 'men's health'. The websites were further subdivided into 3 tiers by 2 independent investigators, with tier 1 websites defined as government or health organisation sponsored, tier 2 websites defined as being sponsored by health services such as private clinics and insurance providers, and tier 3 websites being websites that did not meet criteria for the first 2 tiers. RESULTS: Overall, 28% of websites were rated as tier 1, 26% as tier 2 and 46% as tier 3. The HONcode accreditation was overall 39% of tier 1 websites. The majority of websites reviewed were in the tier 3 category, and 35% of overall websites being non-health or non-medically related. DISCUSSION: The lack of 'relevant' and HONcode-accredited websites relating to men's health should be appreciated by health care professionals.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adult; Health information seeking; Internet; Men; Men’s health
Authors: Andrea Sansone; Angelo Cignarelli; Giacomo Ciocca; Carlotta Pozza; Francesco Giorgino; Francesco Romanelli; Emmanuele A Jannini Journal: Sex Med Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 2.491