A Method for the Design and Development of Medical or Health Care Information Websites to Optimize Search Engine Results Page Rankings on Google

Abstract

BackgroundThe Internet is a widely used source of information for patients searching for medical/health care information. While many studies have assessed existing medical/health care information on the Internet, relatively few have examined methods for design and delivery of such websites, particularly those aimed at the general public.ObjectiveThis study describes a method of evaluating material for new medical/health care websites, or for assessing those already in existence, which is correlated with higher rankings on Google's Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs).MethodsA website quality assessment (WQA) tool was developed using criteria related to the quality of the information to be contained in the website in addition to an assessment of the readability of the text. This was retrospectively applied to assess existing websites that provide information about generic medicines. The reproducibility of the WQA tool and its predictive validity were assessed in this study.ResultsThe WQA tool demonstrated very high reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.95) between 2 independent users. A moderate to strong correlation was found between WQA scores and rankings on Google SERPs. Analogous correlations were seen between rankings and readability of websites as determined by Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores.ConclusionsThe use of the WQA tool developed in this study is recommended as part of the design phase of a medical or health care information provision website, along with assessment of readability of the material to be used. This may ensure that the website performs better on Google searches. The tool can also be used retrospectively to make improvements to existing websites, thus, potentially enabling better Google search result positions without incurring the costs associated with Search Engine Optimization (SEO) professionals or paid promotion.

Patient‐targeted websites on overactive bladder: What are our patients reading?

“…However, our Internet simulations mirror the manner by which most laypeople locate health information online and provides data on current websites. Health website developers could consider the use of optimization strategies, such as those used my many commercial organizations, to improve their website rankings on search engine results pages . Health‐care providers should consider ensuring they have knowledge of high quality, up‐to‐date, patient‐accessible websites to recommend to patients, particularly given the high proportion of survey respondents in our study that agreed/strongly agreed that such information would be valuable from their physicians.…”

What answers does the Internet provide for patients in Ireland with questions about generic medicines?

“…A recently published method for design and development of medical informationproviding websites could be made use of to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled. 23 The question remains as to who should be responsible for provision of such a website? As recommendations from a 2010 report on the proposed model for introduction of generic substitution and reference pricing in Ireland stated that communication of information about generic medicines to the general public would be a key factor for the success of the proposed changed in the Irish healthcare system, 24 it could be argued that the government, or the Irish Health Services Executive, has a role to play in providing this information to Irish patients.…”

Online Decision Support Tool for Personalized Cancer Symptom Checking in the Community (REACT): Acceptability, Feasibility, and Usability Study (Preprint)

“…One way to reliably assess readability of a written material is to use tests for readability available in Microsoft Word [38][39]. The wording in the questionnaire as well as other parts of the website were adjusted by using the Flesh Reading Ease score to ensure the recommended minimum readability scores of 60% (out of 100%) [38][39].…”

“…The wording in the questionnaire as well as other parts of the website were adjusted by using the Flesh Reading Ease score to ensure the recommended minimum readability scores of 60% (out of 100%) [38][39]. Cancer questionnaires (for single cancers and for symptoms) have the highest readability scores, with readability ranging from 72% to 88%, risk results have the lowest readability scores ranging from 60% to 70%.…”