Table 5.
Evaluation of content.
| Indicators | Criteria | |||
| Substance (n=31) | ||||
| Content types (n=15) | ||||
| Factual information (n=14) [18,30,40,41,43,45,46,49,53,62-64,67,69] | ||||
| Evidence based (+a) | Objectivity (+) | |||
| Clinically proven (+) | Objectivity (+) | |||
| Statistics and numbers (+) | Objectivity (+) | |||
| Concrete examples (+) | Practicality (+) | |||
| Objective facts (±b) | Objectivity (+), Balanced (–) | |||
| Ideological and magical information (–c) | Accuracy (–) | |||
| Unproven and uncertain scientific information (–) | Accuracy (–), Objectivity (–) | |||
| Personal experiences (n=9) [30,40,41,45,46,49,63] | ||||
| First hand (+) | Accuracy (+) | |||
| Practical advice (+) | Practicality (+) | |||
| Personal experiences (±) | Objectivity (–), Practicality (+), Identification (+) | |||
| Personal opinion (–) | Objectivity (–), Expertise (–) | |||
| Content attributes (n=29) | ||||
| Balance (n=6) [43,46,48,63,64,67] | ||||
| Alternative medicine (+) | Balanced (+) | |||
| Conflicting views (+) | Balanced (+) | |||
| Both professional and patient viewpoints (+) | Balanced (+) | |||
| Potential side effects (+) | Complete (+), Transparency (+) | |||
| Depth (n=5) [18,46,49,51,62] | ||||
| At the right level of complexity and depth (+) | Understandability (+) | |||
| Increasing in depth overtime (+) | Usefulness (+) | |||
| In-depth information (+) | Expertise (+) | |||
| Quantity (n=5) [18,46,62,67] | ||||
| The right amount (+) | Understandability (+) | |||
| Too much text (–) | Understandability (–) | |||
| Specificity (n=5) [18,46,47,49,67] | ||||
| Various levels of detail for different needs (+) | Usefulness (+) | |||
| Specific and detailed (+) | Understandability (+) | |||
| Overall and general information (–) | Usefulness (–) | |||
| Consensus among sources (n=20) [13,18,30,38-43,55-57,59-61,63,65-67,69] | ||||
| Reaching agreement among media sources (+) | Popularity (+) | |||
| Verified by general practitioners or other health professionals (+) | Expertise (+) | |||
| Crowd consensus (+) | Popularity (+) | |||
| Endorsed by celebrities (±) | Trustworthiness (+), Objectivity (–) | |||
| Specific content elements (n=3) [47,61,67] | ||||
| Natural ingredients (+) | Trustworthiness (+) | |||
| Amount of investment on an intervention (+) | Trustworthiness (+) | |||
| Copyright information (+) | Trustworthiness (+) | |||
| Local support and contact information (+) | Usefulness (+), Relevance (+) | |||
| Argument strength (n=6) [30,32,41,48,56,69] | ||||
| Reasonable (+) | Believability (+) | |||
| Sound plausible and scientific (+) | Believability (+) | |||
| Biased or misleading (–) | Objectivity (–) | |||
| Writing and language (n=19) [18,30,32,42,43,46,48,49,51,52,56-58,60,62-64,67,69] | ||||
| Spelling and grammar errors (–) | Understandability (–), Expertise (–), Trustworthiness (–) | |||
| Long sentences (–) | Readability (–) | |||
| Professional writing (+) | Expertise (+) | |||
| Concise (+) | Comprehensiveness (+), Readability (+) | |||
| Use simple, plain, straightforward, and clear language (+) | Understandability (+) | |||
| Familiar sounding and inclusive language (+) | Understandability (+), Identification (+) | |||
| Sensational (–) | Objectivity (–) | |||
| Patronizing tone (–) | Identification (–) | |||
| Use of professional medical terms and technical vocabularies (±) | Understandability (–), Expertise (+) | |||
| Easy reading level (–) | Expertise (–) | |||
| Presentation of content (n=12) | ||||
| Organization (n=10) [18,32,44,45,49,54,59,62,66,68] | ||||
| Clear layout and organization (+) | Readability (+) | |||
| An overview of the information on a site (+) | Readability (+) | |||
| Use of bolding and shading (+) | Readability (+) | |||
| Bulleted points (+) | Readability (+) | |||
| Headings (+) | Readability (+) | |||
| Prioritizing content (+) | Understandability (+) | |||
| Structure of scientific papers: general approaches and research design (+) | Expertise (+) | |||
| Structure of scientific papers: presence of variables or factors (+) | Expertise (+) | |||
| Structure of scientific papers: research purposes (+) | Expertise (+) | |||
| Labeling (n=2) [43,63] | ||||
| Presence of an informative title (+) | Understandability (+) | |||
| Clearly marked personal experience (+) | Transparency (+) | |||
| References (n=10) [30,39,43,45,56-58,63,64,69] | ||||
| Links to original documents (+) | Transparency (+) | |||
| Number of references included (+) | Trustworthiness (+), Expertise (+) | |||
| Reference to scientific publications (+) | Objectivity (+), Expertise (+) | |||
| Reference to a credible person (+) | Trustworthiness (+), Expertise (+) | |||
| Reference to a specific project or institution (+) | Transparency (+), Trustworthiness (+) | |||
| Authorship (n=16) [30,32,40,42,45,60,62-64,66,67] | ||||
| Explicitly listing authors and author’s credentials (+) | Transparency (+) | |||
| Reference to previous work or curriculum vitae (+) | Trustworthiness (+), Expertise (+) | |||
| Picture of the author (+) | Trustworthiness (+), Transparency (+) | |||
| Health professionals (+) | Expertise (+) | |||
| Journalists (+) | Expertise (+) | |||
| Consumers (±) | Practicality (+), Identification (+), Expertise (–), Objectivity (–) | |||
| Economic gains for its authors (–) | Objectivity (–) | |||
| Religious figures (–) | Objectivity (–) | |||
| Audience (n=11) [32,45-48,51,53,57,58,61,63] | ||||
| Targeted to geographical location (+) | Relevance (+) | |||
| Translated information (+) | Understandability (+), Accessibility (+) | |||
| Tailored and personalized information (+) | Usefulness (+) | |||
| Targeted to minority women (+) | Identification (+) | |||
| Targeted to professions (+) | Relevance (+) | |||
| Targeted to age group (+) | Relevance (+) | |||
| Seeing a face that looked similar to theirs (+) | Identification (+) | |||
| Written for the most educated audience (+) | Expertise (+) | |||
| Aimed at younger children (–) | Relevance (–), Accuracy (–) | |||
| Date/updating (n=12) [30,39,41,43,44,46,53,59,60,63,67,69] | ||||
| The appearance of publication date (+) | Transparency (+) | |||
| Access all the latest research (+) | Currency (+), Completeness (+) | |||
| New interventions (±) | Currency (+), Accuracy (–) | |||
| Up to date (+) | Currency (+) | |||
| Regular updating (+) | Transparency (+), Currency (+) | |||
| Advertisements (n=17) [30,32,39,40,42,43,46,49,54,55,59,62-64,66-68] | ||||
| Presence of ads (–) | Objectivity (–) | |||
| Pushing to sell something (–) | Objectivity (–) | |||
| The appearance of commercial links (–) | Objectivity (–) | |||
a+ indicates a positive evaluation of quality or that a criterion is judged positively.
b± indicates both positive and negative evaluations or a criterion could be judged both positively and negatively.
c– indicates a negative evaluation of quality or that a criterion is judged negatively.