Previous research has reviewed the quality of online information related to specific mental disorders. Yet, no comprehensive study has been conducted on the overall quality of mental health information searched for online. This study examined the first 20 search results of two popular search engines—Google and Bing—for 11 common mental health terms. They were analyzed using the DISCERN instrument, an adaptation of the Depression Website Content Checklist (ADWCC), Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level readability measures, HONCode badge display, and commercial status, resulting in an analysis of 440 web pages.
Quality of Web site results varied based on type of disorder examined, with higher quality Web sites found for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and dysthymia, and lower quality ratings for phobia, anxiety, and panic disorder Web sites. Of the total Web sites analyzed, 67.5% had good or better quality content. Nearly one-third of the search results produced Web sites from three entities: WebMD, Wikipedia, and the Mayo Clinic. The mean Flesch Reading Ease score was 41.21, and the mean Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level score was 11.68. The presence of the HONCode badge and noncommercial status was found to have a small correlation with Web site quality, and Web sites displaying the HONCode badge and commercial sites had lower readability scores. Popular search engines appear to offer generally reliable results pointing to mostly good or better quality mental health Web sites. However, additional work is needed to make these sites more readable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnkertAE, ReinhartAM, FeeleyTH. Health information seeking: a review of measures and methods. Patient Education & Counseling, 2011; 82:346–354.
2.
FoxS. (2011) Health topics: 80% of Internet users look for health information online. Pew Internet & American Life Project. www.pewinternet.org/∼/media/Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Health_Topics.pdf (accessed Mar.13, 2013).
3.
EscofferyC, MinerKR, AdameDD, et al.Internet use for health information among college students. Journal of the American College of Health, 2005; 53:183–188.
4.
KhazaalY, ChattonA, CochandS, et al.Internet use by patients with psychiatric disorders in search for general and medical information. Psychiatry Quarterly, 2008; 79:301–309.
5.
FoxS, DugganM. (2013) Health online. Pew Internet & American Life Project. www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health‐online.aspx (accessed Jan.15, 2013).
6.
EysenbachG, PowellJ, KussO, et al.Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2002; 287:2691–2700.
7.
GriffithsKM, ChristensenH. Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 2000; 321:1511–1515.
8.
BellV. Online information, extreme communities and internet therapy: is the Internet good for our mental health?. Journal of Mental Health, 2007; 16:445–457.
9.
CharnockD, ShepperdS. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Education Research, 2004; 19:440–446.
10.
SilbergWM, LundbergGD, MusacchioRA. Assessing, controlling and assuring quality of medical information on the internet. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1997; 277:1244–1245.
11.
ProvostM, KoompalumD, DongD, et al.The initial development of the WebMedQual Scale: domain assessment of the construct of quality of health Web sites. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2006; 75:42–57.
12.
GodinS, TruschelJ, SinghV. Quality assurance of self-help sites on the Internet. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 2005; 29:67–84.
13.
JadadAR, GagliardiA. Rating health information on the Internet. Navigating to knowledge or to Babel?. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1998; 279:611–614.
14.
GagliardiA, JadadAR. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the Internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. British Medical Journal, 2002; 324:569–573.
15.
CharnockD, ShepperdS, NeedhamG, GannR. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 1999; 53:105–111.
16.
GriffithsKM, ChristensenH. The quality and accessibility of Australian depression sites on the World Wide Web. The Medical Journal of Australia, 2002; 176:S97–S104.
17.
GriffithsKM, ChristensenH. Website quality indicators for consumers. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2005;, 7:55.
18.
Ferreira-LayP, MillerS. The quality of Internet information on depression for laypeople. Psychiatric Bulletin, 2008; 32:170–173.
19.
BarnesC, HarveyR, WildeA, et al.Review of the quality of information on bipolar disorder on the Internet. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2009; 43:934–945.
20.
GuadaJ, VenableV. A comprehensive analysis of the quality of online health-related information regarding schizophrenia. Health & Social Work, 2011; 36:45–53.
21.
ReavleyNJ, JormAF. The quality of mental disorder information websites: a review. Patient Education & Counseling, 2011; 85:16–25.
22.
MishraS. (2011) Google.com shows different search results in different countries. Internet Techies. www.clickonf5.org/12008/google-com-shows-different-search-results-in-different-countries/ (accessed Mar.15, 2013).
23.
McinnesN, HaglundBJA. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Informatics for Health & Social Care, 2011; 36:173–189.
24.
KingMM, WintonASW, AdkinsAD. Assessing the readability of mental health Internet brochures for children and adolescents. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 2003; 12:91–99.
25.
OwnbyRL. Influence of vocabulary and sentence complexity and passive voice on the readability of consumer-oriented mental health information on the Internet. AMIA Symposium Proceedings2005; 585–588.
26.
OrizioG, SchulzP, GasparottiC, et al.The world of e-patients: a content analysis of online social networks focusing on diseases. Telemedicine & E-Health, 2010; 16:1060–1064.
27.
BernstamEV, SheltonDM, WaljiM, et al.Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use?. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2005; 74:13–19.
28.
LissmanTL, BoehnleinJK. A critical review of Internet information about depression. Psychiatric Services, 2001; 52:1046–1050.
29.
comScore (2013) comScore releases March 2013 U.S. search engine rankings. www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/4/comScore_Releases_March_2013_U.S._Search_Engine_Rankings (accessed Apr.12, 2013).
30.
KhazaalY, FernandezS, CochandS, et al.Quality of web-based information on social phobia: a cross-sectional study. Depression & Anxiety, 2008; 25:461–465.
31.
KhazaalY, ChattonA, ZullinoD, et al.HON label and DISCERN as content quality indicators of health-related websites. Psychiatry Quarterly, 2012; 83:15–27.
32.
American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington DC: Author.
33.
Health on the Net Foundation (2009) The HONCode of Conduct for mental and health web sites (HONCode). www.hon.ch/HONcode/Webmasters/Conduct.html (accessed Mar.15, 2013).
34.
KesslerRC, ChiuWT, DemlerO, et al.Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of twelve-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005; 62:617–627.
WangPS, LaneM, OlfsonM, et al.Twelve-month use of mental health services in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 2005; 62:629–640.
37.
MorelV, ChattonA, CochandS, et al.Quality of web-based information on bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2008; 110:265–269.
