The quality of health information on the internet

Purcell, Gretchen P.; Wilson, Petra; Delamothe, Tony

doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7337.557

Cited by 211 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The quality of information has always varied; the internet has simply increased the quantity and the ease of access. Education of consumers or content producers may help reduce the spread of poor information 9,10 .…”

Section: The Internet As a Resource For Health Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While consumers state that they pay heed to the credibility of internet sites, in practice little evaluation is carried out and users seldom remember the sites from which they retrieved information 8 . The quality of internet information needs to be examined in the wider context of imperfect health information generally 9 , and there is little reason to view the internet as radically different from other information sources 10 . While there have been isolated case reports of individuals coming to harm from information on the internet, there is no systematic evidence that more harm arises from this medium than from others 11 .…”

Section: The Internet As a Resource For Health Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Doctor, The Patient and the World-Wide Web: How the Internet is Changing Healthcare

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand individual use of the internet and its impact on individuals, communities and societies is a challenge that is only beginning to be addressed. There are more than 580 million internet users world wide 1 , and over 16 million active users of the world-wide web in the UK 2 . This is more than the estimated number of UK smokers yet little has been done to assess the potential health impact of the internet. New developments will lead to further growth in internet usage, and this medium is increasingly being employed for health information and healthcare delivery. Clinicians need to understand the possibilities of this technology, and to be aware of potential threats to health. THE INTERNET AS A RESOURCE FOR HEALTH INFORMATIONOne of the main uses of the internet is as an encyclopaedic information resource. Surveys consistently show that 60-80% of world-wide-web users have used it to obtain health information 3,4 . The internet has the potential to educate and empower the health consumer, by providing information on health and health services and supporting self-help and patient choice. The 'expert patient' can only become expert if he or she can access and use information, and the internet can support the increasing role of consumers in their healthcare 5 . Two-thirds of those using the internet to find health information claim it has some impact on their healthcare decisions 3 . Consumers value the anonymity, convenience and quantity of information 6 .Many concerns have been raised about the quality of online consumer health information, and the possibility that poor information has detrimental effects on health. A systematic review of 79 studies investigating the quality of online health information revealed that the methodology and rigour of these studies varies widely, as do the findings 7 . The information is often incomplete and sometimes inaccurate, although good quality material can be found. While consumers state that they pay heed to the credibility of internet sites, in practice little evaluation is carried out and users seldom remember the sites from which they retrieved information 8 . The quality of internet information needs to be examined in the wider context of imperfect health information generally 9 , and there is little reason to view the internet as radically different from other information sources 10 . While there have been isolated case reports of individuals coming to harm from information on the internet, there is no systematic evidence that more harm arises from this medium than from others 11 . DAERI (the Database of Adverse Events Related to the Internet) has been established at the University of Heidelberg to monitor this area [www.medcertain.org/daeri/]. Perhaps the difference that the internet is making to consumer health information is one of quantity rather than one of quality. The quality of information has always varied; the internet has simply increased the quantity and the ease of access. Education of consumers or content producers may help reduce the spread of poor...

show abstract

Section: The Internet As a Resource For Health Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Internet As a Resource For Health Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Doctor, The Patient and the World-Wide Web: How the Internet is Changing Healthcare

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is evidence that users with disabilities regularly engage in searching for online health information [6,7] and, compared with other e-patients, their medical treatment decisions have been influenced more significantly by the information they retrieve online [8]. As "limited attention has been paid to people with disabilities by health informatics researchers" [7], authors such as Purcell [9] and Marschollek et al [10] emphasized the urgent need for the development of health information services usable by individuals with disabilities. However "this has not been widely adopted in practice" [11] and "very little scientific literature is fully understandable because mathematical formulas and critical graphical information is presently not directly accessible by any non-visual means" [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Physicians Make Their Articles Readable for Their Blind or Low-Vision Patients? An Analysis of Current Image Processing Practices in Biomedical Journals from the Point of View of Accessibility

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual content in biomedical academic papers is a growing source of critical information, but it is not always fully readable for people with visual impairments. We aimed to assess current image processing practices, accessibility policies, and submission policies in a sample of 12 highly cited biomedical journals. We manually checked the application of text-based alternative image descriptions for every image in 12 articles (one for each journal). We determined whether the journals claimed to follow an accessibility policy and we reviewed their submission policy and their guidelines related to the visual content. We identified important features concerning the processing of images and the characteristics of the visual and the retrieval options of visual content offered by the publishers. The evaluation shows that the actual practices of textual image description in highly cited biomedical journals do not follow general guidelines on accessibility. The images within the articles analyzed lack alternative descriptions or have uninformative descriptions, even in the case of journals claiming to follow an accessibility policy. Consequently, the visual information of scientific articles is not accessible to people with severe visual disabilities.Instructions on image submission are heterogeneous and a declaration of accessibility guidelines was only found in two thirds of the sample of journals, with one third not explicitly following any accessibility policy, although they are required to by law.

show abstract

“…1 The medical profession is increasingly concerned with key internet search terms used by patients. [2][3][4][5] Existing studies suggest that the quality of information available from the internet varies depending upon the medical topic and website. [2][3][4][5] However, there are comparatively few studies of this nature in ophthalmology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2][3][4][5] Existing studies suggest that the quality of information available from the internet varies depending upon the medical topic and website. [2][3][4][5] However, there are comparatively few studies of this nature in ophthalmology. Martins and Morse 6 found that web-based information on retinopathy of prematurity is generally of good quality, although there were deficiencies in some areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informing patients: oculoplastic surgery and the internet

Zaidi

Jones

2009

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Oculoplastic surgery has received little attention compared with other subspecialties in terms of how the internet influences patient expectations. Blepharoplasty resembles a model for oculoplastic operations. We aimed to assess the quality of information accessed by patients on blepharoplasty using the internet as a resource. Methods After surveying doctors and lay persons, the word 'blepharoplasty' and related terms were studied using an advanced keyword search. This scanned average monthly search volume over a recent 12-month period. The three most popular search terms that were found were entered into the Google search engine. Criteria published in the Journal of the American Medical Association for qualifying information from the internet were used in the analysis, yielding a possible score from 0 to a maximum of 4. Results Of the 150 websites that were studied, these criteria were fully applied to 101 websites. Only 2.5% of sites scored favourably on all four criteria; 6.5% scored three points; 10% scored two points; 41% scored one point; 40% of sites scored zero for objective quality. Superior scores were achieved by online encyclopaedias ('medipedias'), peer-reviewed journals, online abstracts, and book chapters. The websites of professional bodies scored poorly. The lowest scored were private clinics and National Health Service (NHS) hospital websites. Conclusions Using the internet, the quality of information obtained for oculoplastic surgery seems far inferior to other subspecialties within ophthalmology as well as nonophthalmic specialties. These findings are specifically relevant to surgeons carrying out blepharoplasty and of general relevance to ophthalmic plastic surgeons.

show abstract

The quality of health information on the internet

Cited by 211 publications

References 6 publications

The Doctor, The Patient and the World-Wide Web: How the Internet is Changing Healthcare

The Doctor, The Patient and the World-Wide Web: How the Internet is Changing Healthcare

Do Physicians Make Their Articles Readable for Their Blind or Low-Vision Patients? An Analysis of Current Image Processing Practices in Biomedical Journals from the Point of View of Accessibility

Informing patients: oculoplastic surgery and the internet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About