Table 6. Sub-group analysis based on website category and analysis criteria (design criteria: 1–2; content criteria: 3–8; credibility criteria: 9–12).

Criteria-based analysis	Blog/ forum	Information website	Press website	Chi-square value	“p” value
1. Clear structure and organization of content.	27.3%	81.3%	25%	13.916	0.001*
2. Easy navigation, “user-friendliness.”	72.7%	100%	62.5%	7.057	0.029*
Design criteria – overall assessment	22.7%	81.3%	18.8%
3. Information relevance and coherence: congruence between key word search and output.	77.3%	93.8%	93.8%	3.137	0.208
4. Scientific rigor: adequate citations. In non-scientific sites, explicit mention of the fact that the site’s content does not replace the advice of a health professional.	22.7%	68.8%	18.8%	11.296	0.004*
5. Covers a wide scope on the subject and presents an accurate and comprehensive message.	18.2%	87.5%	25%	20.769	0.000*
6. Message clarity and comprehensibility. Use of understandable language	95.5%	100%	93.8%	0.950	0.622
7. Updated information, maintenance of site, mention of last content review date.	9.1%	62.5%	43.8%	12.318	0.002*
8. Presence of advertising and sponsor links on the site: clarity and transparency of such links, properly distinguished from the rest of the content.	77.3%	93.8%	68.8%	3.210	0.201
Content criteria – overall assessment	4.5%	56.3%	0%
9. Mention of the author/s and their qualifications. Includes author / institution contact details and address.	45.5%	75%	50%	3.559	0.169
10. Scientific Association accreditations	13.6%	56.3%	12.5%	10.893	0.004*
11. Accreditation certificate or trust mark (HON, WMA, WIS, PWMC or others).	4.5%	12.5%	0%	2.455	0.293
12. Clear statement of bibliographical sources. Reliable references for specialists cited.	27.3%	75%	31.3%	9.826	0.007*
Credibility criteria: overall assessment	9.1%	31.3%	6.3%

Association between these qualitative variables (website category and analysis criteria) was assessed with Pearson’s chi-square test (*Statistically significant association)