Efforts to better assess the quality of health information on the Internet continues to mount.  Research by peer-reviewed organizations and sources have begun to document the quality of health information on the web.  Six key sources are listed below with complete references listed at the end.

Basic Criteria 

Authorship/sponsorship or developers
	Authority of source explicit; bias or balance points of view clear
Credibility, context or setting
Content
	Information quality and accuracy, source of knowledge/expertise, level or hierarchy of evidence, stated criteria for inclusion
Currency
	Content dated, frequency of update and maintenance of the site
Disclosure
	Nature of sponsorship, authorship, and potential conflicts of interest clear
Audience
	Organization, design and instructions reflect the targeted audience in terms of reading level, language, use of images, etc.
Accessibility and ease of use
	Logical organization, can be used by the lowest common denominator of current browser technology, plug-ins where appropriate and  an internal search engine

Current Health Web Assessment Sources

	JAMA reported results from a study funded by the California Health Care Foundation and RAND health that “less than one quarter of the search engines’ first pages of links led to relevant content, and on average 45% of the clinical information were more than minimally covered and accurate (Berland, 2001).”  This study evaluated health information on breast cancer, depression, obesity and childhood asthmas available via both English and Spanish search engines. (http://www.chcf.org).
	BMJ titled their March 9, 2002 “Trust me.  I’m a website,” dedicating it to assessing how patients seek and evaluate medical information online.  Results found that patients were positive about seeking and evaluating medical information online, but that they look for “professional-looking design, a scientific or official touch, language and ease of use” when determine whether information on the site was qualitative.  Gagliardi, A. and Alejandro R. Jadad examined the rapid grow of more criteria to “ensure, judge, or denote the quality of websites offering health information.”  Many now issue logos resembling “awards” or “seals of approval (Gagliardi, A, Jadad, A.R., 2002).”
	Medicine on the Net focused the May 2002 issue to health site and quality, identifying 18 sites that offer guidance for health content evaluation.  Tips for physicians, the Internet Healthcare Coalition’s eHealth code of ethics for content providers, and an updated list of URAC-accredited sites at http://www.corhealth.com/reprint.asp?RN=MN0205001
	Pew Internet & American Life in May 2002 released their “Vital decisions” document that highlights content evaluation guidelines including:  Sponsorship, currency, factual information, and audience (http://www.pewinternet.org).  The appendix reports best practices guidelines for searching from the Medical Library Association.
	JAMA published the Centre for Global eHealth Innovation study in May 2002 that reported results of one of the first systematic reviews, noting that “quality criteria, study population and topic chosen, study results and conclusions on health-related web sites vary widely with operational definitions of quality criteria needed (Eysenbach, G, Poweell, J, Kuss, O, Sa, ER, 2002).
	Medical Library Association maintains a list of qualitative websites that have been extensive reviewed by experts at http://www.mlanet.org, using the following criteria:  credibility, sponsorship/authorship, content, audience, currency, disclosure, purpose, links, design, interactivity and disclaimers.

References

Berland, G.K., Elliott, M.N., Morales,L.S.  (May 23/30, 2001).  Health information on the internet:  Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish.  JAMA, 285 (20), 2612-2621.

Eysenbach, G, Kohler, C.  (March 9, 2002).  How do consumers earch for and appraise health information on the world wide web?  Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews.  BMJ, 324, 573-577.

Gagliardi, A, Jadad, A.R.  (Mach 9, 2002).  Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination.  BMJ, 324, 569-573.

Meaney, B.  (May 2002).  Health site quality:  How can healthcare professionals and consumers determine the quality of content on the Net?  Medicine on the net, 8 (5), 1-7.

 

 Comments regarding this list and/or page may be directed to Diana Cunningham at Diana@nymc.edu.   Updated June 6, 2002.