Introduction: The significant usage of health websites and their roles as diagnostic and therapeutic tools have increased the importance of evaluating their credibility. Health websites are evaluated using the criteria introduced in the health guidelines; therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the adequacy of these criteria.
Materials and Methods: In this critical review study, the guidelines for "Health Websites Evaluation" and "Website Evaluation in Other Subject Areas" were extracted using sensitive keywords from valid databases, classification, comparison and content analyses were performed using scientific methods designed in this study.
Results: The results indicate that in terms of various components of health websites, the evaluation criteria are not adequate. Note that health website evaluation criteria are designed based on the evaluation criteria of other subject areas. Therefore, the criteria share problems similar to those of the guidelines for other subject areas, and they ignore the evaluation of the specific features of health websites. It is necessary to have reliable and accurate guidelines to evaluate health websites.
Conclusion: One of the most significant advantages of these guidelines is that using software provides an infrastructure for the automatic evaluation of health websites. Thus, the evaluation results will be available to the general public in the form of a website ranking.
Hewson C, Stewart DW. Internet research methods. Wiley Online Library; 2016.
Houck DA, Kraeutler MJ, Belk JW, McCarty EC, Bravman JT. Evaluation of information available on the internet regarding reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow. 2019; 11(2 Suppl): 29-34. PMID: 31447942 DOI: 10.1177/1758573217713720
Hilty DM, Ferrer DC, Parish MB, Johnston B, Callahan EJ, Yellowlees PM. The effectiveness of telemental health: A 2013 review. Telemed J E Health. 2013; 19(6): 444-54. PMID: 23697504 DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0075
Gomes AW, Butera G, Chretien KC, Kind T. The development and impact of a social media and professionalism course for medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2017; 29(3): 296-303. PMID: 28272900 DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2016.1275971
Greene JA, Choudhry NK, Kilabuk E, Shrank WH. Online social networking by patients with diabetes: a qualitative evaluation of communication with facebook. J Gen Intern Med. 2011; 26(3): 287-92. PMID: 20945113 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1526-3
Guo S, Guo X, Zhang X, Vogel D. Doctor–patient relationship strength’s impact in an online healthcare community. Information Technology for Development. 2018; 24(2): 1-22.
Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: Systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15(4): e85. PMID: 23615206 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1933
Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: Review. BMJ. 1999; 318(7184): 647-9. PMID: 10066209 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7184.647
Devine T, Broderick J, Harris LM, Wu H, Hilfiker SW. Making quality health websites a national public health priority: Toward quality standards. J Med Internet Res. 2016; 18(8): e211. PMID: 27485512 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5999
Graham AL, Cobb CO, Cobb NK. The Internet, social media, and health decision-making. In: Diefenbach M, Miller-Halegoua S, Bowen D. (eds) Handbook of health decision science. Springer, New York; 2016.
Gutierrez N, Kindratt TB, Pagels P, Foster B, Gimpel NE. Health literacy, health information seeking behaviors and internet use among patients attending a private and public clinic in the same geographic area. J Community Health. 2014; 39(1): 83-9. PMID: 23900880 DOI: 10.1007/s10900-013-9742-5
Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: What can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005; 74(1): 13-9. PMID: 15626632 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001
Brann M, Anderson JG. E-medicine and health care consumers: recognizing current problems and possible resolutions for a safer environment. Health Care Anal. 2002; 10(4): 403-15. PMID: 12814287 DOI: 10.1023/A:1023483327756
The Health Improvement Institute, Consumer WebWatch. A report on the evaluation of criteria sets for assessing health web sites. Health Improvement Institute, Bethesda; 2003.
Hoffman-Goetz L, Clarke JN. Quality of breast cancer sites on the World Wide Web. Can J Public Health. 2000; 91(4): 281-4. PMID: 10986787 DOI: 10.1007/BF03404290
Zeraatkar D, Johnston BC, Guyatt G. Evidence collection and evaluation for the development of dietary guidelines and public policy on nutrition. Annu Rev Nutr. 2019; 39: 227-47. PMID: 31433741 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-082018-124610
Bastos BG, Ferrari DV. Internet and education for the patient. Arquivos Internacionais de Otorrinolaringologia. 2011; 15(04): 515-22.
Roberts L. Health information and the Internet: The 5 Cs website evaluation tool. Br J Nurs. 2010; 19(5): 322-5. PMID: 20335904 DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2010.19.5.47075
Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: The state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001; 16(6): 671-92. PMID: 11780707 DOI: 10.1093/her/16.6.671
Aly MA-S. An evaluative study of some online websites for learning and teaching english as a foreign language [MSc Thesis]. Faculty of Education, Benha University. Egyp; 2008.
Bremner JD, Quinn J, Quinn W, Veledar E. Surfing the net for medical information aboutpsychological trauma: An empirical study of thequality and accuracy of trauma-related websites. Med Inform Internet Med. 2006; 31(3): 227-36. PMID: 16954059 DOI: 10.1080/14639230600887866
Giacomo PD, Maceratini R. Health websites in Italy: use, classification and international policy. Med Inform Internet Med. 2002; 27(3): 153-60. PMID: 12507261 DOI: 10.1080/1463923021000014112
Dalhousie University's Kellogg Health Science Library. Evaluating sources [Internet]. 2016 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://libraries.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/library/CoreSkills/Evaluating_sources.pdf.
University of Maryland. Evaluating sources: Use credible research sources to strengthen your arguments [Internet]. 2014 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://www.umuc.edu/current-students/learning-resources/writing-center/writing-resources/evaluating-sources.cfm.
Healthdirect Australia. Health information online facts or fiction [Internet]. 2016 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/health-information-online-facts-or-fiction.
American Cancer Society. Cancer information on the Internet [Internet]. 2016 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/cancer-information-on-the-internet.html.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Quality Guidelines [Internet]. 2017 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://healthfinder.gov/aboutus/content_guidelines.aspx.
Cornel University Library Categories. Evaluating web pages: Questions to consider [Internet]. 2017 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://guides.library.cornell.edu/c.php?g=32334&p=203767&preview=ad0bac0490cf7ab0653096fe3b4a0fee.
Salado College Library. The research process: A step-by-step tutorial [Internet]. 2017 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://www.riosalado.edu/library/Pages/infolit.aspx.
University of Illinois Board of Trustees . Evaluate your sources [Internet]. 2016 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=348478&p=2347798.
TRIO Training University of Washington. Website assessment and evaluation [Internet]. 2011 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://depts.washington.edu/trio/trioquest/resources/web/assess.php.
Berkeley Library University of California. Evaluating Resources [Internet]. 2017 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources.
Purdue University Libraries. Evaluating sources [Internet]. 2017 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://guides.lib.purdue.edu/c.php?g=352855&p=2378010.
Harvard Guide to Using Sources. Evaluating web sources [Internet]. 2017 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/evaluating-web-sources.
University library of Virginia Polytechnic. Evaluating Internet information [Internet]. 2017 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://guides.lib.vt.edu/BCHM1014/EvaluatingInfoSources.
Kent State University Libraries. Criteria for evaluating web resources [Internet]. 2017 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://www.library.kent.edu/criteria-evaluating-web-resources.
The University of Edinburgh. How to evaluate website content [Internet]. 2015 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/library-museum-gallery/finding-resources/library-databases/databases-overview/evaluating-websites.
Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA. 1998; 279(8): 611-4. PMID: 9486757 DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.8.611
Gagliardi A, Jadad AR. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: Chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ. 2002; 324(7337): 569-73. PMID: 11884320 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.569
Coulter A, Ellins J, Swain D, Clarke A, Heron P, Rasul F, et al. Assessing the quality of information to support people in making decisions about their health and healthcare. Picker Institute Europe, Oxford; 2006.
Selim HM. Content evaluation criteria for general websites: Analysis and comparison. International Journal of Online Marketing (IJOM). 2012; 2(3): 21-38.
Nădăşan V. The quality of online health-related information–an emergent consumer health issue. Acta Medica Marisiensis. 2016; 62(4): 408-21.
Dallas University. The web vs. library databases: A comparison [Internet]. 2012 [cited: 15 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://www.library.yale.edu/researcheducation/pdfs/Searching_Evaluating_Resources.pdf.
Singh SP. Evaluation of electronic reference sources. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology. 2003; 23(2): 43-47.
Kirchgeorg M, Lorbeer A. Kundenbindungsstrategien von e-Health services-anbietern. In: Bruhn M, Stauss B (eds). Electronic Services. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden; 2002.
Zeid H, Handzic M. Commercial websites evaluation. International Symposium on Sustainable Development. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 2012.
Mebrate TW. A framework for evaluating academic website’s quality from students’ perspective. Delft University of Technology, Delft. 2010.
Hasan L, Abuelrub E. Assessing the quality of web sites. Applied Computing and Informatics. 2011; 9(1): 11-29.
Association APH. Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91(3): 513–4. PMID: 11236453 DOI: 10.2105/ajph.91.3.513
Payne KL. Determining quality of sources: Source Evaluation [Internet]. 2015 [cited:10 Sep 2017]. Available from: https://library.weber.edu/sites/default/files/files/LIBS1704%20Textbook/evaluation.pdf.
Betts SN. Evaluating information sources [Internet]. 2014 [cited: 10 Sep 2017]. Available from: http://post.edu/docs/default-source/library/evaluating-information-sources.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Cui S, Reynolds C, McGowan J. The Internet as a legal research tool. In: Saint-Onge M, Corbelli L (eds). For law library decision-makers. American Association of Law Libraries; 2000.
Rennie CA, Hannan S, Maycock N, Kang C. Age-related macular degeneration: What do patients find on the internet? J R Soc Med. 2007 Oct; 100(10): 473–7. PMID: 17911131 DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.100.10.473
Minzer-Conzetti K, Garzon MC, Haggstrom AN, Horii KA, Mancini AJ, Morel KD, et al. Information about infantile hemangiomas on the Internet: How accurate is it? Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2007; 57(6): 998-1004.
Urgo M. Deconstructing Web sites: An alternative technique for Web site evaluation and filtering. Business Information Review. 1997; 14(2): 85-7.
Hadwich K, Georgi D, Tuzovic S, Büttner J, Bruhn M. Perceived quality of e-health services: A conceptual scale development of e-health service quality based on the C-OAR-SE approach. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing. 2010; 4(2): 112-36.
Eng TR. The eHealth landscape: A terrain map of emerging information and communication technologies in health and health care. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Princeton, NJ; 2001.
Meyers J, Van Brunt D, Patrick K, Greene A, editors. Personalizing medicine on the Web: E-health offers hospitals several strategies for success. Health Forum J. 2002; 45(1): 22-6. PMID: 11828597
Lowery JC, Hamill JB, Wilkins EG, Clements E. Technical overview of a web-based telemedicine system for wound assessment. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2002; 15(4): 165-9. PMID: 12151982 DOI: 10.1097/00129334-200207000-00007
Irizarry T, Dabbs AD, Curran CR. Patient portals and patient engagement: A state of the science review. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(6): e148. PMID: 26104044 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4255
Davis SE, Osborn CY, Kripalani S, Goggins KM, Jackson GP. Health literacy, education levels, and patient portal usage during hospitalizations. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015; 2015: 1871-80. PMID: 26958286
Adams SA. Revisiting the online health information reliability debate in the wake of “web 2.0”: An inter-disciplinary literature and website review. Int J Med Inform. 2010; 79(6): 391-400. PMID: 20188623 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.006 [PubMed]
Fahy E, Hardikar R, Fox A, Mackay S. Quality of patient health information on the Internet: Reviewing a complex and evolving landscape. Australas Med J. 2014; 7(1): 24-8. PMID: 24567763 DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2014.1900
Provost M, Koompalum D, Dong D, Martin BC. The initial development of the WebMedQual scale: Domain assessment of the construct of quality of health web sites. Int J Med Inform. 2006; 75(1): 42-57. PMID: 16169770 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.034
Howitt A, Clement S, de Lusignan S, Thiru K, Goodwin D, Wells S. An evaluation of general practice websites in the UK. Family Practice. 2002; 19(5): 547-56.
Japan Internet Medical Association. e-Health Code of Ethics 2.0 [Internet]. 2007 [cited: 1 Dec 2017]. Available from: www.jima.or.jp/ehealth_code/JIMAeHealth_code20(English).pdf.
Skorin-Kapov L, Matijasevic M. Analysis of QoS requirements for e-health services and mapping to evolved packet system QoS classes. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications. 2010; 2010: 9.
Maloney S, Ilic D, Green S. Accessibility, nature and quality of health information on the Internet: A survey on osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005; 44(3): 382-5. PMID: 15572390 DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keh498