ABSTRACT
ObjetivoIdentificar sitios web con información sobre medicamentos a través de expertos y evaluar su adecuación a códigos de conducta y las recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de la Salud.DiseñoEstudio transversal de la adecuación a los criterios, a partir de un cuestionario diseñado ad hoc (efectuado independientemente por dos evaluadores). Los sitios web fueron identificados a partir de la técnica Delphi (35 expertos).EmplazamientoSitios web con información sobre medicamentos.Unidad de análisis35 sitios web seleccionados por la técnica Delphi. En la tercera ronda se alcanzó un nivel de estabilidad (variabilidad intercuartílica) aceptable (< 0,05).Mediciones principalesResponsabilidad, transparencia y honestidad, autoría de la información, política editorial, protección de datos personales, actualización de la información y accesibilidad. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo del cumplimiento y se estimó el coeficiente kappa para valorar la concordancia entre evaluadores (criterios de Fleiss).ResultadosDestacan con cumplimiento general alto el National Prescribing Service Limited (NPS), PubMed, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of American Medical Association, The Lancet, Fisterra y National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. La dimensión de actualización de la información es la que presentó una menor valoración para los diferentes sitios web.ConclusionesLa calidad de los sitios web sobre medicamentos recomendada por expertos es variable. Sin embargo, hay diversos sitios web de cumplimiento alto, que se detallan en el informe(AU)
AimsTo identify websites with information on medicines and assess, using experts, their adherence to codes of conduct and recommendations by the WHO.DesignCross-sectional study based on an ad hoc designed questionnaire (performed independently by 2 reviewers). The websites were identified by the Delphi technique (35 experts).SettingWebsites with information on medicines.ParticipantsA total of 35 websites selected by the Delphi technique. An acceptable level of stability was achieved in the third round (interquartile variability; <0.05).ResultsThe National Prescribing Service Limited (NPS), PubMed, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of American Medical Association, The Lancet, Fisterra and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence stood out with an overall high fulfilment of the questionnaire. The updated information dimension was the lowest evaluation for the different websites.ConclusionsThe quality of the web sites evaluated varied widely. Although there are several websites, which are detailed in the article, with high overall scores(AU)
Subject(s)
Internet , 51835 , Quality Control , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Consumer Health Information , Cross-Sectional Studies , Access to InformationABSTRACT
Objetivos: Evaluar la adecuación de los sitios web destinados a proporcionar información para la realización de seguimiento farmacoterapéutico a 4 códigos de conducta. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo del cumplimiento de los criterios de calidad de 19 sitios web seleccionados por ser los de mayor utilización por los farmacéuticos en un estudio previo. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo y se estimó el coeficiente kappa para valorar la concordancia entre evaluadores (criterios de Fleiss) . Resultados y conclusiones: Fisterra fue la página mejor valorada en los 4 códigos, y la fuente de acceso a guías clínicas mejor calificada. La Cochrane Library y Pubmed las mejor valoradas en revisiones y fuentes secundarias. JAMA y British Medical Journal fueron las revistas mejor calificadas seguidas de Atención Primaria y Medicina Clínica. Entre los vademécums, el BOT y el Martindale obtuvieron las mejores calificaciones y el Boletín Terapéutico Andaluz y el Butlletí Groc recibieron altas calificaciones de entre los boletines de medicamentos. La Organización Mundial de la Salud fue la agencia mejor calificada. Los sitios con menor calificación fueron Pharmaceutical Care, Seguimiento Farmacoterapéutico y el Vademécum Internacional España MediMedia-Medicom. La concordancia entre evaluadores fue aceptable para los 4 códigos. Conclusiones: La calidad de los sitios web que utilizan los farmacéuticos es muy variable, aunque la mayoría superan los 60 puntos (sobre 100) en los 4 códigos de conducta usados en la evaluación
Objectives: To assess adherence to four codes of conduct in websites providing information useful for pharmacotherapy follow-up. Methods: We performed a descriptive study of adherence to quality criteria in 19 websites. These sites had been identified in a previous study as being those most frequently used by pharmacists. A descriptive analysis was performed and the kappa coefficient was calculated to evaluate interrater concordance (Fleiss' criteria for evaluation of the kappa index). Results: The most highly rated source of clinical practice guidelines and that which adhered most closely to the 4 codes of conduct was Fisterra. The websites most highly rated in reviews and secondary sources were the Cochrane Library and PubMed. The most highly rated journals were JAMA and the BMJ, followed by Atención Primaria and Medicina Clínica. Among drug information guides, the highest scores were obtained by BOT and Martindale's. The highest rated drug bulletins were the Boletín Terapéutico Andaluz and Butlletí Groc. The most highly rated agency was the World Health Organization. The journals with the lowest scores were Pharmaceutical Care and Seguimiento Farmacoterapéutico followed by the Spanish Internacional Vademecum MediMedia-Medicom. According to Fleiss's criteria, interrater concordance was acceptable for the 4 codes. Conclusions: The quality of the web sites evaluated varied widely, although most received scores of more than 60 points (out of 100) in the 4 codes of conduct used for evaluation
Subject(s)
Humans , Internet , Biomedical Research/trends , Access to Information , 51706 , Codes of Ethics , Drug Therapy/trends , Pharmacists/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To design a questionnaire to evaluate compliance with quality criteria on health web sites and to analyse its reliability. DESIGN: A descriptive study on the reliability of a questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty web sites on health topics. SETTING: Internet. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The questionnaire was based on analysis of content of the criteria of the e-Europe 2002 code of conduct, comparing these with the criteria underlying the AMA, the Summit code and the e-Health Code of Ethics regulations and current directives. The dimensions studied were transparency, absence of conflicts of interest, authorship, data protection, updating, accountability, and accessibility. A preliminary questionnaire was drawn up for a pilot test conducted by 3 researchers for 20 web sites, its reliability was appraised, adjustments were made and the definitive questionnaire was designed. Reliability was evaluated again for 26 web sites evaluated by 3 researchers. To evaluate concordance in the answers of the participants, Cohen's Kappa index with a 95% confidence level was used. RESULTS: All the quality directives of e-Europe 2002, the European regulations and relevant points from other questionnaires were included in the questionnaire designed. Reliability was acceptable (kappa > or = 0.60) for 12 of the 18 quality criteria included. The least concordant aspects of the questionnaire were information update (kappa = 0.310) and accessibility (search for contents and access for persons with disability). CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of the questionnaire designed was acceptable.
