Abstract
The Internet is a powerful tool for accessing information about complex health topics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate breast cancer Internet sites using published criteria about website structure. Two searches were undertaken (November 1998 and June 1999) using the Yahoo search engine, providing a sample of 136 unique addresses. The results showed 1) owner’s credentials were identified in 31.6% of sites, 2) financial charges were stated in 10.3% of sites, 3) less than 14.0% identified site creation date, 4) 33.1% identified content posting update, 5) 30.1% identified information sources, and 6) just under 88% of sites provided e-mail interactivity. The results indicate variability in breast cancer Internet sites with respect to framework criteria of accountability. We suggest that websites that lack fundamental indicators (such as dating and sources) do not provide the user with fundamental information that could enable informed decision making about site quality.
Résumé
Internet est un outil puissant permettant d’accéder à des informations relatives à des sujets médicaux complexes. L’objectif de cette étude est d’évaluer les sites Internet liés au cancer du sein à l’aide des critères publiés en matière de structure des sites Web. Deux études ont été entreprises (novembre 1998 et juin 1999) à l’aide du moteur de recherche Yahoo, qui ont donné lieu à un échantillon de 136 adresses différentes. Les résultats ont démontré ce qui suit: 1) les qualifications du propriétaire étaient précisées dans 31,6 % des cas, 2) les frais étaient indiqués dans 10,3 % des sites, 3) moins de 14,0 % des sites indiquaient la date de création, 4) 33,1 % des sites indiquaient que de nouvelles informations avaient été affichées dans le cadre de mises à jour, 5) 30,1 % désignaient leurs sources de renseignements, et 6) près de 88 % des sites faisaient preuve d’une certaine interactivité au moyen du courriel. Les résultats révèlent une certaine variabilité dans les sites Web consacrés au cancer du sein du point de vue des critères fondamentaux de responsabilité. Nous suggérons que les sites Web qui ne disposent pas de certaines indications fondamentales (comme la date et les sources) ne fournissent pas d’informations fondamentales dont l’utilisateur pourrait se servir pour prendre une décision éclairée au sujet de la qualité du site.
Footnotes
The work was funded by a grant from the Policy Research Secretariat of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
References
- 1.Coulter A. Evidence-based patient information. BMJ. 1998;317:225–26. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7153.225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Biermann JS, Gooladay GJ, Greenfield MLVH, Baker LH. Evaluation of cancer information on the Internet. Cancer. 1999;86:381–90. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990801)86:3<381::AID-CNCR4>3.0.CO;2-G. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wooton JC. The quality of information on women’s health on the internet. J Women Health. 1997;6:575–81. doi: 10.1089/jwh.1997.6.575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lowes RL. Here come the patients who’ve studied medicine on-line. Med Econ. 1997;32:612–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kassirer JP. The next transformation in the delivery of health care. New Engl J Med. 1995;332:52–54. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199501053320110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Coiera E. Information epidemics, economics, and immunity on the internet. BMJ. 1998;317:1469–70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Alemi F, Mosavel M, Stephens RC, et al. Electronic self-help and support groups. Med Care. 1996;34:OS32–OS34. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199610003-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Larkin M. Internet accelerates spread of bogus cancer cure. Lancet. 1999;353:331. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00018-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Impiccitore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: Systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ. 1997;314:1875–81. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Culver JD, Gerr F, Frumkin H. Medical information on the internet. A study of an electronic bulletin board. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:466–70. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00084.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Silberg WM, Lundberg GD. Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet. JAMA. 1997;277:1244–45. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Pool R. Turning an info-glut into a library. Science. 1994;266:20–22. doi: 10.1126/science.7939636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Glowniak JV. Medical resources on the Internet. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:123–31. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-123-2-199507150-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Wyatt JC. Commentary: Measuring quality and impact of the world wide web. BMJ. 1997;314:1879–80. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Health S W Group. Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet. 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 16.itCanada Health InfoWay. Paths to Better Health: Final Report. Advisory Council on Health Infostructure. Ottawa: Health Canada Publication. 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Rutter F. Doctors learn of the dangers of the Internet. BMJ. 1998;317:1103. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7166.1103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gardiner PV. Evidence based patient information. Doctors should be encouraged to develop information resources on the internet (letter) BMJ. 1999;318:461. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7181.461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mack J. Quality of medical information on the internet (letter) JAMA. 1997;278:632. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03550080042024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Towards quality management of medical information on the Internet: Evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. BMJ. 1998;317:1496–502. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Noble HB. The New York Times. 1999. Hailed as a Surgeon General, Koop criticized on web ethics. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]