Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7337/569

BMJ Intended for US health professionals - Click here for further information
 

Home Help Search/Archive Feedback Table of Contents
Full text of this article
PDF of this article
Email this article to a friend
Send a response to this article
Electronic responses to this article
See related This week in BMJ item
Related editorials in BMJ
Other related articles in BMJ
PubMed citation
Related articles in PubMed
Download to Citation Manager
Search Medline for articles by:
Gagliardi, A. || Jadad, A. R
Alert me when:
New articles cite this article
 
Collections under which this article appears:
Systematic reviews (incl meta-analyses): examples
World Wide Web

BMJ 2002;324:569-573 ( 9 March )
 

Papers

Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination

Anna Gagliardi, senior research associate, a Alejandro R Jadad, professor. b

a See Education and debate p 606 Graduate Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, b Departments of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, and Anaesthesia, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Correspondence to: A R Jadad, Director, Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Fraser Elliott Building, 4th Floor, 190 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada ajadad@uhnres.utoronto.ca

Objective: This study updates work published in 1998, which found that of 47 rating instruments appearing on websites offering health information, 14 described how they were developed, five provided instructions for use, and none reported the interobserver reliability and construct validity of the measurements.
Design: All rating instrument sites noted in the original study were visited to ascertain whether they were still operating. New rating instruments were identified by duplicating and enhancing the comprehensive search of the internet and the medical and information science literature used in the previous study. Eligible instruments were evaluated as in the original study.
Results: 98 instruments used to assess the quality of websites in the past five years were identified. Many of the rating instruments identified in the original study were no longer available. Of 51 newly identified rating instruments, only five provided some information by which they could be evaluated. As with the six sites identified in the original study that remained available, none of these five instruments seemed to have been validated.
Conclusions: Many incompletely developed rating instruments continue to appear on websites providing health information, even when the organisations that gave rise to those instruments no longer exist. Many researchers, organisations, and website developers are exploring alternative ways of helping people to find and use high quality information available on the internet. Whether they are needed or sustainable and whether they make a difference remain to be shown.

 

What is already known on this topic
The rapid growth of healthcare websites in the 1990s was accompanied by initiatives to rate their quality, including award-like symbols on websites

A systematic review of the reliability and validity of such rating instruments, published in 1998, showed that they were incompletely developed

What this study adds
Few of the rating instruments identified in 1998 remain functional; 51 new instruments were identified

Of the 51 newly identified instruments, 11 were not functional, 35 were available but provided no information, and five provided information but were not validated

Many researchers, organisations, and website developers are exploring alternative ways of helping people to find high quality information on the internet



 

 

 

© BMJ 2002

This article has been cited by other articles:

 

  • Bland, J M., Altman, D. G (2002). Statistics Notes: Validating scales and indexes. BMJ 324: 606-607 [Full text]  
  • Wilson, P., Risk, A. (2002). How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet * Commentary: On the way to quality. BMJ 324: 598-602 [Full text]  
  • Purcell, G. P, Wilson, P., Delamothe, T. (2002). The quality of health information on the internet. BMJ 324: 557-558 [Full text]  

Rapid Response responses to this article:

Read all Rapid Response responses

Evidence-based Medical Practice: A Canadian Website Directory and Instrument to rate quality.
France Légaré , Md, MSc, (F)CCMF, et al.
bmj.com, 8 Mar 2002 [Response]

Related editorials in BMJ:

The quality of health information on the internet .
Gretchen P Purcell, Petra Wilson, and Tony Delamothe
BMJ 2002 324: 557-558. [Full text]  

 

Other related articles in BMJ:

EDITOR'S CHOICE
The invention of talk.
BMJ 2002 324: 0. [Full text]  

 


 

 

Home Help Search/Archive Feedback Table of Contents

BMJ Indended for health profesionals - click here for further information
 

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.