Suppr超能文献

用于评估互联网上健康信息质量的工具考察:一次目的地不明的航行纪事

Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination.

作者信息

Gagliardi Anna, Jadad Alejandro R

机构信息

Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Fraser Elliott Building, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada.

出版信息

BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):569-73. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.569.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study updates work published in 1998, which found that of 47 rating instruments appearing on websites offering health information, 14 described how they were developed, five provided instructions for use, and none reported the interobserver reliability and construct validity of the measurements.

DESIGN

All rating instrument sites noted in the original study were visited to ascertain whether they were still operating. New rating instruments were identified by duplicating and enhancing the comprehensive search of the internet and the medical and information science literature used in the previous study. Eligible instruments were evaluated as in the original study.

RESULTS

98 instruments used to assess the quality of websites in the past five years were identified. Many of the rating instruments identified in the original study were no longer available. Of 51 newly identified rating instruments, only five provided some information by which they could be evaluated. As with the six sites identified in the original study that remained available, none of these five instruments seemed to have been validated.

CONCLUSIONS

Many incompletely developed rating instruments continue to appear on websites providing health information, even when the organisations that gave rise to those instruments no longer exist. Many researchers, organisations, and website developers are exploring alternative ways of helping people to find and use high quality information available on the internet. Whether they are needed or sustainable and whether they make a difference remain to be shown.

摘要

目的

本研究更新了1998年发表的一项研究成果,该研究发现,在提供健康信息的网站上出现的47种评分工具中,有14种描述了其开发方式,5种提供了使用说明,且没有一种报告测量的观察者间信度和结构效度。

设计

访问了原始研究中提到的所有评分工具网站,以确定它们是否仍在运营。通过重复并加强对互联网以及先前研究中使用的医学和信息科学文献的全面搜索,识别出新的评分工具。按照原始研究中的方法对符合条件的工具进行评估。

结果

确定了过去五年中用于评估网站质量的98种工具。原始研究中识别出的许多评分工具已不再可用。在新识别出的51种评分工具中,只有5种提供了一些可用于评估它们的信息。与原始研究中仍可访问的6个网站一样,这5种工具似乎都未经验证。

结论

即使产生这些评分工具的组织已不复存在,许多开发不完善的评分工具仍继续出现在提供健康信息的网站上。许多研究人员、组织和网站开发者正在探索其他方法,以帮助人们查找和使用互联网上的高质量信息。这些方法是否必要、是否可持续以及是否能产生影响仍有待证明。

相似文献

2
Assessment of osteoporosis-website quality.
Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(5):741-52. doi: 10.1007/s00198-005-0042-5. Epub 2006 Jan 31.
3
Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel?
JAMA. 1998 Feb 25;279(8):611-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.8.611.
4

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluation of the measurement properties of online health information quality assessment tools: A systematic review.
Int J Nurs Sci. 2025 Feb 21;12(2):130-136. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2025.02.015. eCollection 2025 Mar.
2
Evaluating the effectiveness and limitations of online health information tools in assessing the quality of medication-related content.
Front Public Health. 2025 Feb 24;13:1460202. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1460202. eCollection 2025.
3
Treatment for Constipation-An Online Search. Readability and Quality of Online Patient Resources.
J Patient Exp. 2022 May 22;9:23743735221102675. doi: 10.1177/23743735221102675. eCollection 2022.
8
From a Digital Bottle: A Message to Ourselves in 2039.
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Nov 1;21(11):e16274. doi: 10.2196/16274.

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验