Search Engine Ranking, Quality, and Content of Web Pages That Are Critical Versus Noncritical of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine

Abstract

Purpose Online information can influence attitudes toward vaccination. The aim of the present study is to provide a systematic evaluation of the search engine ranking, quality, and content of webpages that are critical versus noncritical of HPV vaccination. Methods We identified HPV vaccine-related webpages with the Google search engine by entering 20 terms. We then assessed each webpage for critical versus noncritical bias as well as for the following quality indicators: authorship disclosure, source disclosure, attribution of at least one reference, currency, exclusion of testimonial accounts, and readability level less than 9th grade. We also determined webpage comprehensiveness in terms of mention of 14 HPV vaccine relevant topics. Results Twenty searches yielded 116 unique webpages. HPV vaccine-critical webpages comprised roughly a third of the top, top 5 and top 10-ranking webpages. The prevalence of HPV vaccine-critical webpages was higher for queries that included term modifiers in addition to root terms. Compared with noncritical webpages, webpages critical of HPV vaccine overall had a lower quality score than those with a noncritical bias (p<.01) and covered fewer important HPV-related topics (p<.001). Critical webpages required viewers to have higher reading skills, were less likely to include an author byline, and were more likely to include testimonial accounts. They also were more likely to raise unsubstantiated concerns about vaccination. Conclusion Webpages critical of HPV vaccine may be frequently returned and highly ranked by search engine queries despite being of lower quality and less comprehensive than noncritical webpages.

Online Health Information Regarding Male Infertility: An Evaluation of Readability, Suitability, and Quality

“…This process has recently been investigated as a method to rank and navigate biomedical literature [70]. There is some evidence that higher ranked sites describing medical information have higher quality content and easier readability [71,72]; however, others do not corroborate these findings [73,74]. To our knowledge, few analyses of website content include search engine ranking, but this area should be investigated further as patients often equate popular sites with reliable information.…”

Vaccine criticism on the internet: Propositions for future research

“…This has mostly been done by investigating the rhetorical strategies used by vaccine critics to convince their audience, such as reliance on anecdotes rather than statistics, emotive appeals, use of pictures, selfpresentations as "martyrs" or "underdogs" or representatives of "real Science," etc. 3,7,8,40,43,47,48,54,68 Most of these studies have focused on the discourse published by vaccine critics (tone, arguments, themes, style) with a focus on one specific form of internet use: active research of information by the individual in order to make a decision on the subject of vaccination. One way to move forward, building on the results obtained through this perspective, would be to shift the gaze toward the many ways in which vaccine criticism can circulate on the Internet in more complex and interactive ways than by just being available via the common tools of web research.…”

How often people google for vaccination: Qualitative and quantitative insights from a systematic search of the web-based activities using Google Trends

“…[12][13][14] This content is displayed in pages which are frequently returned from search engines and are high-ranked. 15 Further, this content is reported adopting a language that mimics scientific standards, trying to legitimate itself and claiming scientific veracity. 12 The information in the Web regarding MMR 16 is generally consistent and reliable, but websites do not report accurate, complete and consistent information about influenza, 17 and HPV, 18 among others.…”