Future directions for depicting credibility in health care web sites

OBJECTIVES The purpose of the paper was to determine appropriate terminology, criteria, implementation, and develop a theoretical framework by which credibility in health care web sites can be depicted. Future research directions for evaluating credibility in health care web sites was also discussed. METHOD A comprehensive literature review of published articles, policy papers, and grey literature using relevant search terms was conducted. Sources for articles reviewed included MEDLINE (from 1966 to present), PsycINFO (from 1840 to present), ERIC (from 1966 to present), and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) databases. The Web of Science citation service was continuously searched using a subscription service from 2002 to 2004. The search engine Google was also implemented. RESULTS A common term, credibility, was purposed for use in this context. A comprehensive set of credibility criteria, presented within a theoretical framework was also developed. Implementation by means of a browser-based graphic icon was purposed. CONCLUSIONS Relevancy and readiness of the purposed common terminology, criteria, and implementation within the theoretical framework must be further researched. More knowledge of consumers' behaviour regarding use of online health content and collaboration with others when implementing such information should be considered in future research.

[1]  G. Frydman,et al.  The first generation of e-patients , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  G. Eysenbach,et al.  Evidence-based Patient Choice and Consumer health informatics in the Internet age , 2001, Journal of medical Internet research.

[3]  G D Lundberg,et al.  Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. , 1997, JAMA.

[4]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1989 .

[5]  Carl W. Roberts,et al.  Text analysis for the social sciences : methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts , 1997 .

[6]  Tony Delamothe,et al.  From electronic gadgets to better health: where is the knowledge? , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Elizabeth Sillence,et al.  Trust and mistrust of online health sites , 2004, CHI.

[8]  A R Jadad,et al.  Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? , 1998, JAMA.

[9]  Gunther Eysenbach,et al.  Towards ethical guidelines for e-health: JMIR Theme Issue on eHealth Ethics , 2000, Journal of medical Internet research.

[10]  Jonathan Marshall,et al.  The impact of displayed awards on the credibility and retention of Web site information , 2000, AMIA.

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

[12]  Tony Delamothe,et al.  What next for electronic communication and health care? , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[14]  M. Winker,et al.  Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association. , 2000, JAMA.

[15]  S. Kalichman,et al.  HIV-AIDS patients' evaluation of health information on the internet: the digital divide and vulnerability to fraudulent claims. , 2004, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[16]  H. Sandvik.  Health information and interaction on the internet: a survey of female urinary incontinence , 1999, BMJ.

[17]  Paul Kim,et al.  Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review , 1999, BMJ.

[18]  Maurizio Bonati,et al.  Quality on the internet , 1998 .

[19]  J C Wyatt,et al.  Commentary: measuring quality and impact of the world wide web , 1997, BMJ.

[20]  Laurie Harrison,et al.  Web accessibility validation and repair: which tool and why? , 2003 .

[21]  P. Impicciatore,et al.  Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home , 1997, BMJ.

[22]  Lynne Lamberg,et al.  Online Empathy for Mood Disorders , 2003 .

[23]  Subbiah Arunachalam,et al.  Assuring Quality and Relevance of Internet Information in the Real World , 1998 .

[24]  Laura O'Grady.  Depicting credibility in health care Web sites: towards a more usable means , 2003, SIGC.

[25]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  The elements of computer credibility , 1999, CHI '99.

[26]  G Eysenbach,et al.  Information in practice Towards quality management of medical information on the internet : evaluation , labelling , and filtering of information , 1998 .

[27]  Andre Tomlin,et al.  How electronic communication is changing health care: Usability is main barrier to effective electronic information systems , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  D. Lorence,et al.  Setting the Public Agenda for Online Health Search: A White Paper and Action Agenda , 2004, Journal of medical Internet research.

[29]  Elmer V. Bernstam,et al.  Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? , 2005, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[30]  Jeremy C Wyatt,et al.  Survey of Doctors' Experience of Patients Using the Internet , 2002, Journal of medical Internet research.