A comprehensive scoping review to identify standards for the development of health information resources on the internet.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
22
02
2019
accepted:
30
05
2019
entrez:
21
6
2019
pubmed:
21
6
2019
medline:
14
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. To identify standards for the development of health information resources on the internet for patients. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31220126
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218342
pii: PONE-D-19-05366
pmc: PMC6586310
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0218342Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
JAMA. 2000 Mar 22-29;283(12):1600-6
pubmed: 10735398
J Med Internet Res. 2002 Dec;4(3):E15
pubmed: 12554546
J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Aug;20(8):683-5
pubmed: 16050874
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107(Pt 2):1308-12
pubmed: 15361026
Int J Med Inform. 2005 Jan;74(1):13-9
pubmed: 15626632
Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 May 21;55(5):
pubmed: 31117208
J Med Internet Res. 2003 Nov 27;5(4):e30
pubmed: 14713658
BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):569-73
pubmed: 11884320
Methods Inf Med. 2012;51(4):295-300
pubmed: 22476362
Am J Med. 2002 Dec 15;113(9):763-5
pubmed: 12517369
JAMA. 1997 Apr 16;277(15):1244-5
pubmed: 9103351
J Appl Psychol. 1948 Jun;32(3):221-33
pubmed: 18867058
JAMA. 2002 May 22-29;287(20):2691-700
pubmed: 12020305
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999 Feb;53(2):105-11
pubmed: 10396471
Health Technol (Berl). 2011 Nov 18;1(2-4):71-80
pubmed: 22288026
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Dec 12-26;165(22):2618-24
pubmed: 16344419
BMJ. 1999 Mar 6;318(7184):647-9
pubmed: 10066209
Orthop Nurs. 2010 May-Jun;29(3):214-9
pubmed: 20505493
JAMA. 1998 Feb 25;279(8):611-4
pubmed: 9486757