Lubna Daraz1, Allison S Morrow2, Oscar J Ponce2, Bradley Beuschel2, Magdoleen H Farah2, Abdulrahman Katabi2, Mouaz Alsawas2, Abdul M Majzoub2, Raed Benkhadra3, Mohamed O Seisa2, Jingyi Francess Ding2, Larry Prokop4, M Hassan Murad2. 1. Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Research Program, Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Daraz.Lubna@mayo.edu. 2. Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Research Program, Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Mayo Clinic Libraries, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Internet has become a leading source of health information accessed by patients and the general public. It is crucial that this information is reliable and accurate. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the overall quality of online health information targeting patients and the general public. METHODS: The systematic review is based on a pre-established protocol and is reported according to the PRISMA statement. Eleven databases and Internet searches were performed for relevant studies. Descriptive statistics were used to synthesize data. The NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Out of 3393 references, we included 153 cross-sectional studies evaluating 11,785 websites using 14 quality assessment tools. The quality level varied across scales. Using DISCERN, none of the websites received a category of excellent in quality, 37-79% were rated as good, and the rest were rated as poor quality. Only 18% of websites were HON Code certified. Quality varied by affiliation (governmental was higher than academic, which was higher than other media sources) and by health specialty (likely higher in internal medicine and anesthesiology). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive systematic review demonstrated suboptimal quality of online health information. Therefore, the Internet at the present time does not provide reliable health information for laypersons. The quality of online health information requires significant improvement which should be a mandate for policymakers and private and public organizations.
BACKGROUND: The Internet has become a leading source of health information accessed by patients and the general public. It is crucial that this information is reliable and accurate. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the overall quality of online health information targeting patients and the general public. METHODS: The systematic review is based on a pre-established protocol and is reported according to the PRISMA statement. Eleven databases and Internet searches were performed for relevant studies. Descriptive statistics were used to synthesize data. The NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Out of 3393 references, we included 153 cross-sectional studies evaluating 11,785 websites using 14 quality assessment tools. The quality level varied across scales. Using DISCERN, none of the websites received a category of excellent in quality, 37-79% were rated as good, and the rest were rated as poor quality. Only 18% of websites were HON Code certified. Quality varied by affiliation (governmental was higher than academic, which was higher than other media sources) and by health specialty (likely higher in internal medicine and anesthesiology). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive systematic review demonstrated suboptimal quality of online health information. Therefore, the Internet at the present time does not provide reliable health information for laypersons. The quality of online health information requires significant improvement which should be a mandate for policymakers and private and public organizations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Internet; health literacy; online health information; patient education; quality; systematic review
Authors: Gregory J Nason; Joseph F Baker; Damien P Byrne; Jacques Noel; David Moore; Patrick J Kiely Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Lubna Daraz; Allison S Morrow; Oscar J Ponce; Wigdan Farah; Abdulrahman Katabi; Abdul Majzoub; Mohamed O Seisa; Raed Benkhadra; Mouaz Alsawas; Prokop Larry; M Hassan Murad Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Terri Jabaley; Niya Xiong; Susanne Conley; Teresa Mazeika; Danielle Johnson; Brenda A Biggins; Nancy Hilton; Fangxin Hong Journal: Can Oncol Nurs J Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Terri Jabaley; Niya Xiong; Susanne Conley; Teresa Mazeika; Danielle Johnson; Brenda A Biggins; Nancy Hilton; Fangxin Hong Journal: Can Oncol Nurs J Date: 2022-04-01