This study identified the criteria that are valued among Internet users when rating and accessing health information on the World Wide Web. Participants (N = 578) successfully completed a Web-based survey by ranking 12 criteria for evaluating health information. Then, by applying those same evaluation criteria, rated the quality of three preselected health-related websites and indicated their preference for one of the three sites. Six criteria including content, design and aesthetics, currency of information and contact addresses were significant predictors for selecting high-quality health information on the Internet. However, compared to their perceived importance, participants' perceptions about quality health information on the Internet were not consistent when selecting quality websites. This study identified the implications for evaluation criteria among Internet users, health professionals and website developers.
Adelhard, K., & Obst, O. (1999). Evaluation of medical Internet sites. Methods of Information in Medicine, 38(2), 75-79.
2.
Berland, G.K., Elliott, M.N., Morales, L.S., Algazy, J.I., Kravitz, R.L., Broder, M.S., Kanouse, D.E., Munoz, J.A., Puyol, J.A., Lara, M., Watkins, K.E., Yang, H., & McGlynn, E.A. (2001). Health information on the Internet: Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(20), 2612-2621.
3.
Eng , T.R. (2001). The eHealth landscape: A terrain map of emerging information and communication technologies in health and health care. Princeton, NJ: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
4.
Eng, T.R., Maxfield, A., Patrick, K., Deering, M.J., Ratzan, S., & Gustafson, D. (1998). Access to health information and support: A public highway or a private road? Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1371-1375.
5.
Fornaciari, C., & Roca, M. (1999) The age of clutter: Conducting effective research using the Internet. Journal of Management Education, 23(6), 732-742.
6.
Friedman, R.B. (1996). Top ten reasons the World Wide Web may fail to change medical education. Academic Medicine, 71, 979-981.
7.
Guttman, M. (2000). Housecalls. USA Weekend, 2-4 June, 6-10.
8.
Health on the Net Foundation (HON). (1997). HON survey Feb/Mar 97 B results. Accessed 22 June 2000 from http://www.hon.ch/cgi-bin/quest/quest_netMar
9.
Health on the Net Foundation (HON). (1999). Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct for medical web sites . Accessed 29 September 2000 from http://www.hon.ch/Conduct.html
10.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W.B. (1990). Handbook in research and evaluation, 2nd edn. San Diego, CA: EdITS Publishers.
11.
Jadad, A.R., & Gagliardi, A. (1998). Rating health information on the Internet. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 611-661.
12.
Kim, P., Eng, T.R., Deering, M.J., & Maxfield, A. (1999). Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: Review. British Medical Journal, 318, 647-649.
13.
McLeod, S. (1998). The quality of medical information on the Internet: A new public health concern. Archives of Opthamology, 116, 1663-1665.
14.
Medical Matrix LLC. (2000). About Medical Matrix. Accessed 20 June 2000 from http://www.medmatrix.org/info/about.asp
15.
Oravec, J.A. (2000). On-line medical information and service delivery: Implications for health education. Journal of Health Education , 31, 105-109.
16.
Petska, K. (1999). US tops 100 million Internet users according to computer industry almanac. Accessed 16 August 2000 from http://www.c-i-a.com/
17.
Robinson, T.N., Patrick, K., Eng, T.R., & Gustafson, D. (for the Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health). (1998 ). An evidence-based approach to interactive health communication: A challenge to medicine in the information age. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1264-1269.
18.
Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health (SciPICH). (1999a). Evaluation of IHC applications. In T. R. Eng & D. H. Gustafson (Eds.), Wired for health and well-being: The emergence of interactive health communication (pp. 43-60). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, US Government Printing Office.
19.
Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health (SciPICH). (1999b). Evaluation reporting template for interactive health communication applications, version 1.0. Accessed 29 September 1999 from http://www.scipich.org
20.
Silberg, W.M., Lundberg, G.D., & Musacchio, R.A. (1997). Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15), 1244-1245.
21.
Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., & Askegaard, S. (1999). Consumer behavior: A European perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
22.
US Department of Health and Human Services. ( 2000). Healthy people 2010. Conference edition in two volumes . Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
23.
Weiler, R.M., & Pealer, L.N. (2000). The sitelegend: Twelve components of a new strategy for providing website documentation. Journal of School Health , 70(4), 148-152.
24.
Yuh, J.L., Abbott, A.V., & Ontai, S. (2000). Pilot study of a rating instrument for medical education web sites. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 290.
