Wiley K E, Steffens M, Berry N, Leask J
National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, 2145, Australia.
Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2017 Jan 13;17(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3933-9.
The Internet is increasingly a source of health information for parents, who use the Internet alongside health care providers for immunisation information. Concerns have been raised about the reliability of online immunisation information, however to date there has been no audit of the quality or quantity of what is available to Australian parents. The objective of this study was to address this gap by simulating a general online search for immunisation information, and assessing the quality and quantity of the web sites returned by the search.
We used Google trends to identify the most common immunisation search terms used in Australia. The ten most common terms were entered into five search engines and the first ten non-commercial results from each search collated. A quality assessment tool was developed using the World Health Organization Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) criteria for assessing the quality of vaccine safety web sites, and used to assess and score the quality of the sites.
Seven hundred web pages were identified, of which 514 were duplicates, leaving 186 pages from 115 web sites which were audited. Forty sites did not include human immunisation information, or presented personal opinion about individuals, and were not scored. Of the 75 sites quality scored, 65 (87%) were supportive of immunisation, while 10 (13%) were not supportive. The overall mean quality score was 57/100 (range 14/100 to 92/100). When stratified by pro and anti-vaccination stance, the average quality score for pro-vaccine sites was 61/100, while the average score for anti-vaccine sites was 30/100. Pro-vaccine information could be divided into three content groups: generalist overview with little detail; well-articulated and understandable detail; and lengthy and highly technical explanations. The main area found to be lacking in pro-vaccine sites was lack of transparent authorship.
Our findings suggest a need for information which is easily found, transparently authored, well-referenced, and written in a way that is easily understood.
互联网日益成为家长获取健康信息的来源，他们会结合医疗服务提供者来获取免疫接种信息。人们对在线免疫接种信息的可靠性表示担忧，然而迄今为止，尚未对澳大利亚家长可获取的相关信息的质量和数量进行过审核。本研究的目的是通过模拟一般的在线搜索免疫接种信息，并评估搜索返回的网站的质量和数量来填补这一空白。
我们使用谷歌趋势来确定澳大利亚最常用的免疫接种搜索词。将十个最常见的词输入五个搜索引擎，并整理每个搜索的前十条非商业结果。利用世界卫生组织疫苗安全全球咨询委员会（GACVS）评估疫苗安全网站质量的标准开发了一个质量评估工具，并用于评估和评分这些网站的质量。
共识别出700个网页，其中514个为重复网页，剩下115个网站的186个页面接受了审核。40个网站未包含人类免疫接种信息，或呈现了关于个人的个人观点，未进行评分。在75个进行质量评分的网站中，65个（87%）支持免疫接种，而10个（13%）不支持。总体平均质量得分为57/100（范围为14/100至92/100）。按支持和反对疫苗接种立场分层时，支持疫苗接种网站的平均质量得分为61/100，而反对疫苗接种网站的平均得分为30/100。支持疫苗接种的信息可分为三个内容组：缺乏细节的一般概述；阐述清晰且易于理解的细节；冗长且高度技术性的解释。支持疫苗接种网站中发现的主要不足之处是缺乏透明的作者信息。
我们的研究结果表明需要易于查找、作者信息透明、参考文献丰富且表述易懂的信息。
