A Method for the Design and Development of Medical or Health Care Information Websites to Optimize Search Engine Results Page Rankings on Google

Background The Internet is a widely used source of information for patients searching for medical/health care information. While many studies have assessed existing medical/health care information on the Internet, relatively few have examined methods for design and delivery of such websites, particularly those aimed at the general public. Objective This study describes a method of evaluating material for new medical/health care websites, or for assessing those already in existence, which is correlated with higher rankings on Google's Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs). Methods A website quality assessment (WQA) tool was developed using criteria related to the quality of the information to be contained in the website in addition to an assessment of the readability of the text. This was retrospectively applied to assess existing websites that provide information about generic medicines. The reproducibility of the WQA tool and its predictive validity were assessed in this study. Results The WQA tool demonstrated very high reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.95) between 2 independent users. A moderate to strong correlation was found between WQA scores and rankings on Google SERPs. Analogous correlations were seen between rankings and readability of websites as determined by Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores. Conclusions The use of the WQA tool developed in this study is recommended as part of the design phase of a medical or health care information provision website, along with assessment of readability of the material to be used. This may ensure that the website performs better on Google searches. The tool can also be used retrospectively to make improvements to existing websites, thus, potentially enabling better Google search result positions without incurring the costs associated with Search Engine Optimization (SEO) professionals or paid promotion.

[1]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Quality evaluation of the available Internet information regarding pain during orthodontic treatment. , 2013, The Angle orthodontist.

[2]  Y. Colón.  Searching for Pain Information, Education, and Support on the Internet , 2013, Journal of pain & palliative care pharmacotherapy.

[3]  Alberto E. Tozzi,et al.  Does googling for preconception care result in information consistent with international guidelines: a comparison of information found by Italian women of childbearing age and health professionals , 2013, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[4]  W. Chou,et al.  Web 2.0 for health promotion: reviewing the current evidence. , 2013, American journal of public health.

[5]  W. Cullen,et al.  A review of the differences and similarities between generic drugs and their originator counterparts, including economic benefits associated with usage of generic medicines, using Ireland as a case study , 2013, BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology.

[6]  A. D. Giglio,et al.  Qualidade da informação da internet disponível para pacientes em páginas em português , 2012 .

[7]  M. Alsaadi.  Evaluation of internet use for health information by parents of asthmatic children attending pediatric clinics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia , 2012, Annals of Saudi medicine.

[8]  A. P. S. Gondim,et al.  Qualidade das informações de saúde e medicamentos nos sítios brasileiros , 2012 .

[9]  Christoph Baumgärtel,et al.  Myths, questions, facts about generic drugs in the EU , 2012 .

[10]  A. P. S. Gondim,et al.  Quality of health and medication information on Brazilian websites. , 2012, Einstein.

[11]  Andreas Holzinger,et al.  Search Engine Optimization Meets e-Business - A Theory-based Evaluation: Findability and Usability as Key Success Factors , 2012, DCNET/ICE-B/OPTICS.

[12]  A. del Giglio,et al.  Quality of internet information available to patients on websites in Portuguese. , 2012, Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira.

[13]  P. Tran,et al.  Internet use by orthopaedic outpatients - current trends and practices. , 2012, The Australasian medical journal.

[14]  Martina Ziefle,et al.  Investigating paper vs. screen in real-life hospital workflows: Performance contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience , 2011, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  D. Windish,et al.  Communication discrepancies between physicians and hospitalized patients. , 2010, Archives of internal medicine.

[16]  S. V. van Zanten,et al.  Systematic review of the quality of patient information on the internet regarding inflammatory bowel disease treatments. , 2010, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[17]  Norman Otto Stockmeyer,et al.  Using Microsoft Word's Readability Program , 2008 .

[18]  Martine Smith.  Literacy in Ireland , 2007 .

[19]  Joseph A. Diaz,et al.  Patients’ use of the internet for medical information , 2002, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[20]  J. Powell,et al.  Internet information-seeking in mental health , 2006, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[21]  C. Daugherty,et al.  Use of the internet to obtain cancer information among cancer patients at an urban county hospital. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  M. W. Peterson,et al.  Patient use of the internet for information in a lung cancer clinic. , 2003, Chest.

[23]  T. L. Lissman,et al.  A critical review of internet information about depression. , 2001, Psychiatric services.

[24]  Dirk Vordermark,et al.  The Internet as a Source of Medical Information Investigation in a Mixed Cohort of Radiotherapy Patients , 2000, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie.

[25]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Adult Literacy in OECD Countries: Technical Report on the First International Adult Literacy Survey. , 1998 .

[26]  R. P. Fishburne,et al.  Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel , 1975 .

[27]  R. Flesch.  A new readability yardstick. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.