Interact J Med Res. 2015 Mar 30;4(1):e8. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.3144.

Medical information on the internet: a tool for measuring consumer perception of quality aspects.

Interactive journal of medical research

Arthur Dubowicz, Peter J Schulz

PMID: 25835333 PMCID: PMC4395769 DOI: 10.2196/ijmr.3144

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most of adult Internet users have searched for health information on the Internet. The Internet has become one of the most important sources for health information and treatment advice. In most cases, the information found is not verified with a medical doctor, but judged by the "online-diagnosers" independently. Facing this situation, public health authorities raise concern over the quality of medical information laypersons can find on the Internet.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was aimed at developing a measure to evaluate the credibility of websites that offer medical advice and information. The measure was tested in a quasi-experimental study on two sleeping-disorder websites of different quality.

METHODS: There were 45 survey items for rating the credibility of websites that were tested in a quasi-experimental study with a random assignment of 454 participants to either a high- or a low-quality website exposure. Using principal component analysis, the original items were reduced to 13 and sorted into the factors: trustworthiness, textual deficits of the content, interferences (external links on the Web site), and advertisements. The first two factors focus more on the provided content itself, while the other two describe the embedding of the content into the website. The 45 survey items had been designed previously using exploratory observations and literature research.

RESULTS: The final scale showed adequate power and reliability for all factors. The loadings of the principal component analysis ranged satisfactorily (.644 to .854). Significant differences at P<.001 were found between the low- and high-quality groups. Advertisements on the website were rated as disturbing in both experimental conditions, meaning that they do not differentiate between good and bad information.

CONCLUSIONS: The scale reliably distinguished high- and low-quality of medical advice given on websites.

Keywords: Internet intervention; online health information; quality assessment; scale development; sleeping disorders

References

1. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 21;13(4):e97 - PubMed
2. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):557-8 - PubMed
3. JAMA. 2001 May 23-30;285(20):2612-21 - PubMed
4. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Dec 12-26;165(22):2618-24 - PubMed
5. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000;:230-4 - PubMed
6. JAMA. 2002 May 22-29;287(20):2691-700 - PubMed
7. JAMA. 2003 May 14;289(18):2400-6 - PubMed
8. BMC Public Health. 2007 Apr 10;7:53 - PubMed
9. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21(2):134-9 - PubMed
10. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):581-2 - PubMed
11. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):573-7 - PubMed
12. BMJ. 2000 Jun 24;320(7251):1713-6 - PubMed
13. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Nov 17;10(4):e42 - PubMed
14. Qual Health Res. 2005 Mar;15(3):325-45 - PubMed
15. N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 4;362(9):859-60 - PubMed
16. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005 Mar;44(3):382-5 - PubMed
17. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;:225-9 - PubMed
18. J Med Internet Res. 2003 Dec 11;5(4):e31 - PubMed
19. BMJ. 2004 May 15;328(7449):1150 - PubMed
20. Cancer. 2008 Mar 15;112(6):1206-13 - PubMed
21. Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Oct;77(1):33-7 - PubMed
22. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):598-602 - PubMed
23. Urology. 2004 Jul;64(1):112-6 - PubMed
24. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2006 Dec;29(4):855-70; abstract vii - PubMed
25. JAMA. 1998 Feb 25;279(8):611-4 - PubMed
26. Proc AMIA Symp. 2001;:169-73 - PubMed
27. Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Nov;85(2):e16-25 - PubMed
28. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999 Feb;53(2):105-11 - PubMed
29. Behav Res Ther. 2003 Apr;41(4):427-45 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article