Stausberg J, Fuchs J, Hüsing J, Hirche H
Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, University of Essen, Germany.
Med Inform Internet Med. 2001 Jan-Mar;26(1):17-24.
It is becoming increasingly common for health care providers to present information on the World Wide Web (WWW). Patients, as well as health care professionals, do not really know what they can expect today. Many quality criteria are proposed for the assessment of medical Internet sites focusing mainly on structure and content management. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of presentations by health care providers on the WWW and to detect strengths and weaknesses with regard to potential target groups, patients, colleagues, and students. A sample of 171 presentations was randomly selected in March 2000 from a collection of 469 surgical departments in Germany. Medical doctors undergoing a full-time training in medical informatics rated the presentations. A previously evaluated questionnaire was used to assess the presentations with regard to 12 criteria about content and technical features. For each criterion the categories 'very good', 'sufficient', and 'insufficient' could be used. Twenty medical doctors assessed 168 presentations with one to seven valuations per presentation. Three presentations could not be accessed at the time of evaluation. Sixty-eight per cent of the median values of each criterion were rated as insufficient. The only criteria rated sufficient or better in at least 50% were: employees/map, survey of offered medical services, navigation, and layout. University hospitals and heart centres achieved significantly better results than regional hospitals. In conclusion, the quality of provider information on the W WW is unsatisfactory. Most surgical departments do not provide information that could help patients to choose their physicians. The criteria set developed here could be a useful tool for a target-group-oriented self-assessment of provider presentations on the World Wide Web.
医疗保健提供者在万维网上发布信息的情况越来越普遍。患者以及医疗保健专业人员实际上并不清楚如今他们能期待些什么。许多质量标准被提出来用于评估医学网站,主要集中在结构和内容管理方面。本研究的目的是评估医疗保健提供者在万维网上发布内容的质量,并找出针对潜在目标群体、患者、同事和学生的优势与不足。2000年3月,从德国469个外科科室的集合中随机抽取了171个发布内容作为样本。接受医学信息学全日制培训的医生对这些发布内容进行评分。使用一份先前经过评估的问卷,依据12项关于内容和技术特征的标准来评估这些发布内容。对于每个标准,可以使用“非常好”“足够”和“不足”这几个类别。20名医生评估了168个发布内容,每个发布内容有一到七个评分。在评估时,有三个发布内容无法访问。每个标准中位数的68%被评为不足。至少50%被评为足够或更好的标准仅有:员工/地图、所提供医疗服务的概述、导航和布局。大学医院和心脏中心取得的结果明显优于地区医院。总之,万维网上提供者信息的质量并不令人满意。大多数外科科室没有提供能帮助患者选择医生的信息。这里制定的标准集可能是对万维网上提供者发布内容进行面向目标群体的自我评估的有用工具。