nach oben

Osteoporosis International

Erschienen in:

01.05.2006 | Original Article

Assessment of osteoporosis-website quality

verfasst von: E. M. Lewiecki, L. A. Rudolph, G. M. Kiebzak, J. R. Chavez, B. M. Thorpe

Erschienen in: Osteoporosis International | Ausgabe 5/2006

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

The Internet provides great opportunities for patient healthcare education, but poses risks that inaccurate, outdated, or harmful information will be disseminated. Osteoporosis is a topic of great interest to patients, many of whom use the Internet to obtain medical information. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate measurement tools to determine the quality of osteoporosis websites for patients.

Methods

Quality indicators in the categories of content, credibility, navigability, currency, and readability were incorporated into separate evaluation tools for healthcare professionals and for patients. Websites were selected from an Internet search. Interobserver reliability and validity were assessed, and a sample of osteoporosis websites was evaluated by an osteoporosis nurse educator and compared to patient evaluations.

Results

For the quality indicators, there was 79% agreement between the osteoporosis nurse educators, 88% agreement between the physician osteoporosis experts, and 71% agreement comparing the osteoporosis nurse educators to the physician osteoporosis experts. Quality scores for evaluated websites ranged from 18–96 (maximum possible=100), with a mean of 66. Websites with Uniform Resource Locator (URL) suffix .com scored significantly lower compared to those with .gov (P<0.05), .edu (P<0.01), and .org (P<0.01). Healthcare professionals and patients were in agreement on the quality of the highest-rated websites, with less agreement for lower-rated websites.

Conclusions

In summary, a tool for measuring the quality of medical websites was developed and evaluated. Significant variability in osteoporosis-website quality was observed. Higher-quality scores were associated with a higher level of search engine match and specific URL suffixes. A validated tool for evaluating medical websites may have value in assisting patients to select high-quality osteoporosis educational information on the Internet, and may encourage website developers to improve the quality of information that is provided.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ryan M, Smith KM (2003) Webographies: a patient’s guide to health information on the Internet. Am J Health Syst Pharm 60:876–877, 881PubMed

Krane D Healthcare News (2005) Number of “cyberchondriacs”- US adults who go online for health information- increases to estimated 117 million. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/healthnews/HI_HealthCareNews2005Vol5_Iss08.pdf. Cited 21 Aug 2005

Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER (2002) Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 287:2691–2700CrossRefPubMed

Jain T, Barbieri RL (2005) Website quality assessment: mistaking apples for oranges. Fertil Steril 83:545–547CrossRefPubMed

Huang JY, Discepola F, Al-Fozan H, Tulandi T (2005) Quality of fertility clinic websites. Fertil Steril 83:538–544CrossRefPubMed

RAND Health (2001) Proceed with caution: a report on the quality of health information on the Internet. http://www.chcf.org/documents/consumer/ProceedWithCautionCompleteStudy.pdf. Cited 7 Sept 2005

Benigeri M, Pluye P (2003) Shortcomings of health information on the Internet. Health Promot Int 18:381–386CrossRefPubMed

Walji M, Sagaram S, Sagaram D, Meric-Bernstam F, Johnson C, Mirza NQ, Bernstam EV (2004) Efficacy of quality criteria to identify potentially harmful information: a cross-sectional survey of complementary and alternative medicine web sites. J Med Internet Res 6:e21CrossRefPubMed

Matthews SC, Camacho A, Mills PJ, Dimsdale JE (2003) The internet for medical information about cancer: help or hindrance? Psychosomatics 44:100–103CrossRefPubMed

10.

Green CJ, Kazanjian A, Helmer D (2004) Informing, advising, or persuading? An assessment of bone mineral density testing information from consumer health websites. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 20:156–166CrossRefPubMed

11.

URAC (2005) Health web site check-up service and accreditation program. http://www.urac.org/prog_accred_HWS_po.asp?navid=accreditation&pagename=prog_accred_HWS. Cited 7 Sept 2005

12.

Internet Healthcare Coalition (2005) eHealth Code of Ethics. http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/ethics/ethics.html. Cited 21 Aug 2005

13.

Winker M, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett R, DeAngelis C, Musacchio R (2005) Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/1905.html. Cited 27 Aug 2005

14.

Health On the Net Foundation (2005) http://www.hon.ch/. Cited 21 Aug 2005

15.

Risk A, Dzenowagis J (2001) Review of internet health information quality initiatives. J Med Internet Res 3:E28CrossRefPubMed

16.

Gagliardi A, Jadad AR (2002) Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 324:569–573CrossRefPubMed

17.

Jadad AR, Gagliardi A (1998) Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA 279:611–614CrossRefPubMed

18.

Sullivan D (2005) Nielsen NetRatings search engine ratings. http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2156451.Cited 21 Aug 2005

19.

National Osteoporosis Foundation (2002) America’s bone health: the state of osteoporosis and low bone mass in our nation. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DC

20.

Greenberg L, D’Andrea G, Lorence D (2003) Setting the public agenda for online health search, a white paper and action agenda. http://www.urac.org/documents/URAC-CWWHealthSearchWhitePaper1203.pdf. Cited 7 Sept 2005

21.

Ambre J, Guard R, Perveiler F, Renner J, Rippen H (1997) Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet. http://hitiweb.mitretek.org/docs/criteria.pdf. Cited 7 Sept 2005

22.

Ansani NT, Vogt M, Henderson BA, McKaveney TP, Weber RJ, Smith RB, Burda M, Kwoh CK, Osial TA, Starz T (2005) Quality of arthritis information on the Internet. Am J Health Syst Pharm 62:1184–1189PubMedCrossRef

23.

Howitt A, Clement S, de LS, Thiru K, Goodwin D, Wells S (2002) An evaluation of general practice websites in the UK. Fam Pract 19:547–556PubMedCrossRef

24.

Flesch RF (1951) How to test readability. Harper, New York

25.

Kincaid J, Fishburne R, Rogers R, Chissom B (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas: automated reliability index, fog count, and Flesch reading ease formula for Navy enlisted personnel (branch report 8-75). US Navy, Millington, TN

26.

Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH (1996) Teaching patients with low literacy skills. J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia

27.

D’Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J (2001) The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 155:807–812PubMed

28.

Williams DM, Counselman FL, Caggiano CD (1996) Emergency department discharge instructions and patient literacy: a problem of disparity. Am J Emerg Med 14:19–22PubMedCrossRef

29.

Lee PP (1999) Why literacy matters. Links between reading ability and health. Arch Ophthalmol 117:100–103PubMed

30.

Kenkel PJ (2002) Boon for consumers? Hospital quality regulator and big business health purchasing coop join forces. Manag Care Q 10:51PubMed

31.

O’Leary DS (1987) Leaders speak out on the quality of healthcare delivery. Interview by Richard L. Clarke. Healthc Financ Manage 41:38–40, 44PubMed

32.

Watts NB (2002) Bone quality: getting closer to a definition. J Bone Miner Res 17(7):1148–1150PubMedCrossRef

33.

Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F (2005) Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform 74:13–19CrossRefPubMed

34.

Fricke M, Fallis D, Jones M, Luszko GM (2005) Consumer health information on the Internet about carpal tunnel syndrome: indicators of accuracy. Am J Med 118:168–174CrossRefPubMed

35.

Fraquelli M, Conte D, Camma C, Casazza G, Di BD, Rebulla P, Prati D (2004) Quality-related variables at hepatological websites. Dig Liver Dis 36:533–538CrossRefPubMed

36.

Butler L, Foster NE (2003) Back pain online: a cross-sectional survey of the quality of web-based information on low back pain. Spine 28:395–401CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Assessment of osteoporosis-website quality
verfasst von: E. M. Lewiecki
L. A. Rudolph
G. M. Kiebzak
J. R. Chavez
B. M. Thorpe
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2006
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Osteoporosis International / Ausgabe 5/2006
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-0042-5

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

25.04.2024 | Hypertonie | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Assessment of osteoporosis-website quality

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2006

Patient variables impact lumbar spine dual energy X-ray absorptiometry precision

Influence of duration of total breast-feeding on bone mineral density in a Turkish population: does the priority of risk factors differ from society to society?

Relationship between insulin-like growth factor I, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate and proresorptive cytokines and bone density in cystic fibrosis

Maintenance of muscle strength may counteract weight-loss-related postmenopausal bone loss—a population-based approach

2MD, a new anabolic agent for osteoporosis treatment

Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis-related fractures in Sweden

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie