Website Quality Indicators for Consumers

Background The rating tool DISCERN was designed for use by consumers without content expertise to evaluate the quality of health information. There is some evidence that DISCERN may be a valid indicator of evidence-based website quality when applied by health professionals. However, it is not known if the tool is a valid measure of evidence-based quality when used by consumers. Since it is a lengthy instrument requiring training in its use, DISCERN may prove impractical for use by the typical consumer. It is therefore important to explore the validity of other simpler potential indicators of site quality such as Google PageRank. Objective This study aimed to determine (1) whether the instrument DISCERN is a valid indicator of evidence-based Web content quality for consumers without specific mental health training, and (2) whether Google PageRank is an indicator of website content quality as measured by an evidence-based gold standard. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey of depression websites using consumer and health professional raters. The main outcome measures were (1) site characteristics, (2) evidence-based quality of content as measured by evidence-based depression guidelines, (3) DISCERN scores, (4) Google PageRank, and (5) user satisfaction. Results There was a significant association between evidence-based quality ratings and average DISCERN ratings both for consumers (r = 0.62, P = .001) and health professionals (r = 0.80, P < .001). Consumer and health professional DISCERN ratings were significantly correlated (r = 0.77, P < .001). The evidence-based quality score correlated with Google PageRank (r = 0.59, P = .002). However, the correlation between DISCERN scores and user satisfaction was higher than the correlation between Google PageRank and user satisfaction. Conclusions DISCERN has potential as an indicator of content quality when used either by experts or by consumers. Google PageRank shows some promise as an automatic indicator of quality.

[1]  L. Lau,et al.  [Analysis of paediatric neuro-oncological information on the Internet in German language]. , 2003, Klinische Padiatrie.

[2]  Susannah Fox,et al.  Internet Health Resources , 2003 .

[3]  Darren Hargrave,et al.  [Quality of childhood brain tumour information on the Internet in French language]. , 2003, Bulletin du cancer.

[4]  Gbogboade Ademiluyi,et al.  Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. , 2003, Patient education and counseling.

[5]  Eli Upfal,et al.  Using PageRank to Characterize Web Structure , 2002, Internet Math..

[6]  J. Powell,et al.  Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. , 2002, JAMA.

[7]  K. Griffiths,et al.  The quality and accessibility of Australian depression sites on the World Wide Web , 2002, Medical Journal of Australia.

[8]  Christian Köhler,et al.  How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  H. Christensen,et al.  Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: cross sectional survey , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  D Charnock,et al.  DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. , 1999, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[11]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[12]  G. Andrews,et al.  Unmet Need in Psychiatry: List of Contributors , 2000 .

[13]  J. Murray,et al.  The Global Burden of Disease , 1996 .