Developing a Web site in primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES While content, navigability, and usability are essential qualities of effective Web sites, the health care literature contains limited discussion of these issues. This article describes how knowledge gained through focus groups, Web site searches, and individual interviews were used to develop and improve a health-related Web site. METHODS We conducted 10 focus groups and searches of existing Web sites in preparation for developing a Web site about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We conducted 30 in-depth interviews to assess content, navigation, and usability of a new CRC Web site, using participants recruited from Michigan communities with a low incidence of CRC testing. Targeted participants were 50-70 years of age, had no prior experience with CRC testing, and had variable comfort levels with Internet use. RESULTS Existing CRC screening Web sites uniformly use user-directed navigation and have little variation in content. Our study participants stimulated revisions in content, navigation, and usability. Revised content factors included comprehension, utility, and appeal. Navigation changes focused on logical transition between sections. Usability changes included user focus and clarity of graphics/ text. CONCLUSIONS We found focus groups, Web site searches, and individual interviews useful in developing and testing content, navigation, and usability of a CRC screening Web site. These steps provide methodological procedures for developing and revising health-related Web sites.

[1]  J. Creswell.  Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. , 1998 .

[2]  J. A. Edwards,et al.  Talking data : transcription and coding in discourse research , 1995 .

[3]  W. Neuman,et al.  Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 2002 .

[4]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1993 .

[5]  Linda Tetzlaff,et al.  Online cancer patient education: evaluating usability and content. , 2002, Cancer practice.

[6]  A. Axelrod,et al.  Cancer-related patient education: an overview of the last decade of evaluation and research. , 2001, Oncology nursing forum.

[7]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[8]  Michael Pignone,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Adults at Average Risk: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  Study design in qualitative research , 1993, Journal of general internal medicine.

[10]  Peter L. Elkin,et al.  Case Report: Optimization of a Research Web Environment for Academic Internal Medicine Faculty , 2002, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[11]  R. Bonakdar.  Herbal cancer cures on the Web: noncompliance with The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. , 2002, Family medicine.

[12]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. , 1997, Gastroenterology.

[13]  M. Peterson,et al.  An evaluation of the quality and contents of asthma education on the World Wide Web. , 2002, Chest.

[14]  C. Ryan,et al.  Resources on colorectal cancer for patients. , 2000, Cancer practice.

[15]  William A. Knaus,et al.  Implementation Brief: A User-centered Model for Web Site Design: Needs Assessment, User Interface Design, and Rapid Prototyping , 2002, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[16]  J W Feightner,et al.  Preventive health information on the Internet. Qualitative study of consumers' perspectives. , 2001, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[17]  E. Guba,et al.  Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. , 2005 .

[18]  Alexa T. McCray,et al.  Usability issues in developing a Web-based consumer health site , 2000, AMIA.

[19]  Sherry Holcomb,et al.  Computer-using patients want Internet services from family physicians. , 2002, The Journal of family practice.

[20]  D M Fuller,et al.  Ensuring quality Website redesign: the University of Maryland's experience. , 2001, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[21]  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.

[22]  Robert J. Mayer,et al.  Erratum: Colorectal cancer screening: Clinical guidelines and rationale (Gastroenterology (1997) 112 (594-642)) , 1997 .

[23]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1992 .

[24]  R. Curry,et al.  Explanatory models for cancer among African-American women at two Atlanta neighborhood health centers: the implications for a cancer screening program. , 1994, Social science & medicine.

[25]  Kathleen N. Lohr,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Adults , 2002 .

[26]  Taylor Murray,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2000 , 2000, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[27]  C. Beeker,et al.  Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Men and Women: Qualitative Research Findings and Implications for Intervention , 2000, Journal of Community Health.

[28]  A Coulter,et al.  Evidence based patient information , 1998, BMJ.

[29]  Janet Mancini Billson,et al.  Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research , 1989 .