Assessing the quality of infertility resources on the World Wide Web: tools to guide clients through the maze of fact and fiction.

The Internet has become a major source of health information for women, but information placed on the World Wide Web does not routinely undergo a peer review process before dissemination. In this study, we present an analysis of 197 infertility-related Web sites for quality and accountability, using JAMA's minimal core standards for responsible print. Only 2% of the web sites analyzed met all four recommended standards, and 50.8% failed to report any of the four. Commercial web sites were more likely to fail to meet minimum standards (71.2%) than those with educational (46.8%) or supportive (29.8%) elements. Web sites with educational and informational components were most common (70.6%), followed by commercial sites (52.8%) and sites that offered a forum for infertility support and activism (28.9%). Internet resources available to infertile patients are at best variable. The current state of infertility-related materials on the World Wide Web offers unprecedented opportunities to improve services to a growing number of e-health users. Because of variations in quality of site content, women's health clinicians must assume responsibility for a new role as information monitor. This study provides assessment tools clinicians can apply and share with clients.

[1]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[2]  T. Wagner,et al.  The demand for consumer health information. , 2001, Journal of health economics.

[3]  R. J. Cline,et al.  Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. , 2001, Health education research.

[4]  J. Biermann,et al.  Evaluation of cancer information on the Internet , 1999, Cancer.

[5]  L Hoffman-Goetz,et al.  Quality of Breast Cancer Sites on the World Wide Web , 2000, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[6]  H Bower,et al.  Internet sees growth of unverified health claims , 1996, BMJ.

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

[8]  R. Casper,et al.  Use of the internet by infertile couples. , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  J. Fleiss.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1974 .

[10]  J. Mack.  Quality of medical information on the Internet. , 1997 .

[11]  F. Hoehler.  Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  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.

[13]  F A Sonnenberg,et al.  Health information on the Internet. Opportunities and pitfalls. , 1997, Archives of internal medicine.

[14]  A. Dyer.  Ethics, advertising, and assisted reproduction: the goals and methods of advertising. , 1997, Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health.

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

[16]  A. Feinstein,et al.  High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  A. Feinstein,et al.  High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  M. Larkin.  Internet accelerates spread of bogus cancer cure , 1999, The Lancet.

[19]  H. J. Mcclung,et al.  The Internet as a source for current patient information. , 1998, Pediatrics.

[20]  A. Sparks,et al.  The cost of infertility evaluation and therapy: findings of a self-insured university healthcare plan. , 1999, Fertility and sterility.

[21]  M J Podgor,et al.  Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. , 1992, American journal of epidemiology.