PLoS ONE · 2019 · 42 citations · 31 references
ComputingHealth InformaticsElectronic Health RecordsHealth Data StandardsHealth Information SystemsHealth Informatics StandardsHealth Information EvaluationHealth Literacy InformaticsAccuracyEditorial ProcessHealth Information AccuracyHealth Information UsabilityInternet Health Information EvaluationOnline Health Information EvaluationReadabilityWeb-based Health Information Evaluation
BACKGROUND: Online health information, if evidence-based and unbiased, can improve patients' and caregivers' health knowledge and assist them in disease management and health care decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To identify standards for the development of health information resources on the internet for patients. METHODS: We searched in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for publications describing evaluation instruments for websites providing health information. Eligible instruments were identified by three independent reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus. Items reported were extracted and categorized into seven domains (accuracy, completeness and comprehensiveness, technical elements, design and aesthetics, usability, accessibility, and readability) that were previously thought to be a minimum requirement for websites. RESULTS: One hundred eleven articles met inclusion criteria, reporting 92 evaluation instruments (1609 items). We found 74 unique items that we grouped into the seven domains. For the accuracy domain, one item evaluated information provided in concordance with current guidelines. For completeness and comprehensiveness, 18 items described the disease with respect to various topics such as etiology or therapy, among others. For technical elements, 27 items evaluated disclosure of authorship, sponsorship, affiliation, editorial process, feedback process, privacy, and data protection. For design and aesthetics, 10 items evaluated consistent layout and relevant graphics and images. For usability, 10 items evaluated ease of navigation and functionality of internal search engines. For accessibility, five items evaluated the availability of websites to people with audiovisual disabilities. For readability, three items evaluated conversational writing style and use of a readability tool to determine the reading level of the text. CONCLUSION: We identified standards for the development of online patient health information. This proposed instrument can serve as a guideline to develop and improve how health information is presented on the internet.
31
Rudolph Flesch · Journal of Applied Psychology · 1948 · 5.2K citations
David Charnock, Sasha Shepperd, Gill Needham et al. · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · 1999 · 3.1K citations · Full text
Social Sciences, Health Information Management, Evidence-based Practice +15
SMOG Grading - A New Readability Formula.
G. Harry McLaughlin · The Journal of Reading · 1969 · 2.1K citations
Education, Educational Assessment, Educational Measurement +9