Difference between revisions of "Journal:What Is health information quality? Ethical dimension and perception by users"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created stub. Saving and adding more.)
 
(Saving and adding more.)
Line 34: Line 34:


'''Keywords''': internet, information quality, ethics, online information, public health
'''Keywords''': internet, information quality, ethics, online information, public health
==Introduction==
With the diffusion of the internet, many have been concerned that, due to its unregulated and unfiltered nature, it could misinform or disinform the public. The lack of widely used search engines (Google was founded in 1998) left entirely up to the users which websites to trust among the relatively few ones (compared to 2018) available. These concerns led to the development, in the late 1990s, of instruments and organizations to assess health information quality (HIQ) of websites, including the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria<ref name="SilbergAssessing97">{{cite journal |title=Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware |journal=JAMA |author=Silberg, W.M.; Lundberg, G.D.; Musacchio, R.A. |volume=277 |issue=15 |pages=1244–5 |year=1997 |doi=10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039 |pmid=9103351}}</ref>, DISCERN<ref name="CharnockDISCERN99">{{cite journal |title=DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices |journal=Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health |author=Charnock, D.; Shepperd, S.; Needham, G.; Gann, R. |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=105–11 |year=1999 |doi=10.1136/jech.53.2.105 |pmid=10396471 |pmc=PMC1756830}}</ref>, and the criteria for meeting the health-on-the-net (HON) code of conduct (3).<ref name="BoyerTheHealth98">{{cite journal |title=The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites |journal=Computers in Biology and Medicine |author=Boyer, C.; Selby, M.; Scherrer, J.R.; Appel, R.D. |volume=28 |issue=5 |pages=603-10 |year=1998 |doi=10.1016/S0010-4825(98)00037-7 |pmid=9861515}}</ref> These instruments were developed for different purposes: the JAMA and DISCERN tools were aimed at providing customers with instruments to assess websites<ref name="SilbergAssessing97" /><ref name="CharnockDISCERN99" />; the HON criteria are used by the HON foundation to certify health websites with the display of the HONCode quality seal, and this was originally aimed at organizations to help them develop websites.<ref name="BoyerTheHealth98" /> The criteria of HIQ considered by these three approaches are listed in Table 1.
[[File:Tab1 Al-Jefri FrontInMedicine2018 5.jpg|500px]]
{{clear}}
{|
| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"|
{| border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="500px"
|-
  | style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"| <blockquote>'''Table 1.''' Established HIQ instruments and criteria</blockquote>
|-
|}
|}


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 18:13, 18 March 2019

Full article title What Is health information quality? Ethical dimension and perception by users
Journal Frontiers in Medicine
Author(s) Al-Jefri, Majed; Evans, Roger; Uchyigit, Gulden; Ghezzi, Pietro
Author affiliation(s) University of Brighton, Brighton and Sussex Medical School
Primary contact Email: pietro dot ghezzi at gmail dot com
Editors Sampaio, Cristina
Year published 2018
Volume and issue 5
Page(s) 260
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00260
ISSN 2296-858X
Distribution license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Website https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2018.00260/full
Download https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2018.00260/pdf (PDF)

Abstract

Introduction: The popularity of seeking health information online makes information quality (IQ) a public health issue. The present study aims at building a theoretical framework of health information quality (HIQ) that can be applied to websites and defines which IQ criteria are important for a website to be trustworthy and meet users' expectations.

Methods: We have identified a list of HIQ criteria from existing tools and assessment criteria and elaborated them into a questionnaire that was promoted via social media and, mainly, the university. Responses (329) were used to rank the different criteria for their importance in trusting a website and to identify patterns of criteria using hierarchical cluster analysis.

Results: HIQ criteria were organized in five dimensions based on previous theoretical frameworks, as well as on how they cluster together in the questionnaire response. We could identify a top-ranking dimension (scientific completeness) that describes what the user is expecting to know from the websites (in particular: description of symptoms, treatments, side effects). Cluster analysis also identified a number of criteria borrowed from existing tools for assessing HIQ that could be subsumed to a broad “ethical” dimension (such as conflict of interests, privacy, advertising policies) that were, in general, ranked of low importance by the participants. Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences in the importance assigned to the various criteria based on gender, language, and whether or not a biomedical educational background was evident.

Conclusions: We identified criteria of HIQ and organized them in dimensions. We observed that ethical criteria, while regarded highly in the academic and medical environment, are not considered highly by the public.

Keywords: internet, information quality, ethics, online information, public health

Introduction

With the diffusion of the internet, many have been concerned that, due to its unregulated and unfiltered nature, it could misinform or disinform the public. The lack of widely used search engines (Google was founded in 1998) left entirely up to the users which websites to trust among the relatively few ones (compared to 2018) available. These concerns led to the development, in the late 1990s, of instruments and organizations to assess health information quality (HIQ) of websites, including the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria[1], DISCERN[2], and the criteria for meeting the health-on-the-net (HON) code of conduct (3).[3] These instruments were developed for different purposes: the JAMA and DISCERN tools were aimed at providing customers with instruments to assess websites[1][2]; the HON criteria are used by the HON foundation to certify health websites with the display of the HONCode quality seal, and this was originally aimed at organizations to help them develop websites.[3] The criteria of HIQ considered by these three approaches are listed in Table 1.


Tab1 Al-Jefri FrontInMedicine2018 5.jpg

Table 1. Established HIQ instruments and criteria

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Silberg, W.M.; Lundberg, G.D.; Musacchio, R.A. (1997). "Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware". JAMA 277 (15): 1244–5. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039. PMID 9103351. 
  2. 2.0 2.1 Charnock, D.; Shepperd, S.; Needham, G.; Gann, R. (1999). "DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices". Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 53 (2): 105–11. doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105. PMC PMC1756830. PMID 10396471. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1756830. 
  3. 3.0 3.1 Boyer, C.; Selby, M.; Scherrer, J.R.; Appel, R.D. (1998). "The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites". Computers in Biology and Medicine 28 (5): 603-10. doi:10.1016/S0010-4825(98)00037-7. PMID 9861515. 

Notes

This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation.