The variation in quality and content of patient‐focused health information on the Internet for otitis media

Joury, Abdulaziz; Joraid, A; Alqahtani, Friyal Mubarak; Alghamdi, Abdullah A.; Batwa, A; Pines, Jesse M.

doi:10.1111/cch.12524

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As 1 point is allocated for each of the criteria met, scores range from 0 to 4; a higher score indicates better quality. Although these benchmarks have been applied to evaluate the quality of website-derived health information on various diseases [19-21], the quality of IBD-related information on websites has not yet been reported.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of information on the Internet for Korean patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Yoon

Lee

Kim

et al. 2019

Korean J Intern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/AimsThe Internet is the main resource for health-related information. The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rapidly increasing in Asian countries. However, the quality of websites for IBD available in this region has not been evaluated. We aimed to evaluate the quality of the information on IBD obtained from Korean websites.MethodsUsing the terms “Crohn’s disease” or “ulcerative colitis,” websites were selected from those obtained with the three most renowned search engines in Korea; 60 websites from the results of each engine were chosen. The websites were classified into institutional, commercial, charitable, supportive, or alternative medicine types according to the characteristics of each site. The websites were evaluated regarding content quality using the validated DISCERN instrument and the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmarks.ResultsThe median score of all the websites according to the DISCERN instrument was 32 (interquartile range, 25 to 47) out of 80, indicating an insufficient overall quality of information. The alternative medicine sites scored the lowest, whereas the institutional sites scored the highest (p < 0.05). The quality of information was significantly different among the search engines (p = 0.028). The rank of appearance in the Google search result did not correlate with the quality level of the information.ConclusionsThe quality of information on the Internet regarding IBD varied according to the website type and search engine. Accreditation and quality assurance systems should be implemented for websites to ensure that the public and patients obtain accurate information on IBD.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of information on the Internet for Korean patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Yoon

Lee

Kim

et al. 2019

Korean J Intern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have evaluated the quality of health information websites and found varied results depending on the topic being researched 9–12. However, the literature evaluating how well VAs find and interpret online health information is limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the quality of voice assistants’ responses to consumer health questions about vaccines: an exploratory comparison of Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri

Couvillon

Helbing

2019

BMJ Health Care Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the quality and accuracy of the voice assistants (VAs), Amazon Alexa, Siri and Google Assistant, in answering consumer health questions about vaccine safety and use.MethodsResponses of each VA to 54 questions related to vaccination were scored using a rubric designed to assess the accuracy of each answer provided through audio output and the quality of the source supporting each answer.ResultsOut of a total of 6 possible points, Siri averaged 5.16 points, Google Assistant averaged 5.10 points and Alexa averaged 0.98 points. Google Assistant and Siri understood voice queries accurately and provided users with links to authoritative sources about vaccination. Alexa understood fewer voice queries and did not draw answers from the same sources that were used by Google Assistant and Siri.ConclusionsThose involved in patient education should be aware of the high variability of results between VAs. Developers and health technology experts should also push for greater usability and transparency about information partnerships as the health information delivery capabilities of these devices expand in the future.

show abstract

“…Our results are not surprising when compared to similar studies on other healthrelated topics, which have identified similar problems. Joury et al showed with their study of websites showing information for patients with otitis media that there is also a lack of high-quality websites in this field, and only very few pages were written in a language that is accessible to a patient [30]. Johnson et al reported in 2019 that online sources of information for patients with lymphoedema were only suitable for readers with a higher level of understanding, but were unsuitable and misleading for the general population [31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of Information for Skin Cancer Prevention: A Quantitative Evaluation of Internet Offerings

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Different sources of information are used by the population regarding skin cancer prevention. The pertinent quality of information that can be retrieved via an internet search engine needs assessment; (2) Methods: Four topical searches in common language were entered into Google™. The first 200 “hits” were stored for further use. Eligible websites were evaluated using content-based criteria based on the current German medical guideline “Skin cancer prevention” and employing generic (DISCERN, HONcode) quality criteria. (3) Results: Overlap between the four search results was between 0 and 7 of 200. The completeness of relevant content was scored with a median of 10 points (first quartile (Q1):6; Q3:14) and thus, it was much lower than the theoretical maximum of 43 points. Global quality, with a maximum of 10 points, was 3 in median (Q1:2; Q3:4). Quality and completeness, respectively, were somewhat higher in the higher ranks of search results. The generic quality was moderate. (4) Conclusions: A direct comparison with other sources of information (print, audio-visual, presentation, or personal counselling) is not possible, but important deficits concerning the quality and scope of relevant information on the internet are demonstrated.

show abstract

The variation in quality and content of patient‐focused health information on the Internet for otitis media

Cited by 27 publications

References 22 publications

Quality of information on the Internet for Korean patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Quality of information on the Internet for Korean patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Evaluating the quality of voice assistants’ responses to consumer health questions about vaccines: an exploratory comparison of Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri

Quality of Information for Skin Cancer Prevention: A Quantitative Evaluation of Internet Offerings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About