Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review.

OBJECTIVE: To review published criteria for specifically evaluating health related information on the world wide web, and to identify areas of consensus. DESIGN: Search of world wide web sites and peer reviewed medical journals for explicit criteria for evaluating health related information on the web, using Medline and Lexis-Nexis databases, and the following internet search engines: Yahoo!, Excite, Altavista, Webcrawler, HotBot, Infoseek, Magellan Internet Guide, and Lycos. Criteria were extracted and grouped into categories. RESULTS: 29 published rating tools and journal articles were identified that had explicit criteria for assessing health related web sites. Of the 165 criteria extracted from these tools and articles, 132 (80%) were grouped under one of 12 specific categories and 33 (20%) were grouped as miscellaneous because they lacked specificity or were unique. The most frequently cited criteria were those dealing with content, design and aesthetics of site, disclosure of authors, sponsors, or developers, currency of information (includes frequency of update, freshness, maintenance of site), authority of source, ease of use, and accessibility and availability. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that many authors agree on key criteria for evaluating health related web sites, and that efforts to develop consensus criteria may be helpful. The next step is to identify and assess a clear, simple set of consensus criteria that the general public can understand and use.

Review of published criteria for evaluating health-related websites.

OBJECTIVE: To review published criteria for specifically evaluating health-related information on the World Wide Web and to identify areas of consensus in evaluation. DESIGN: Search of Web sites and peer-reviewed medical journals for explicit criteria for evaluating health-related information on the Web using Medline and Lexis-Nexis databases and the following Internet search engines: Yahoo!, Excite, Altavista, Webcrawler, HotBot, Infoseek, Magellan Internet Guide, and Lycos. Criteria were extracted and grouped into categories. RESULTS: Twenty-nine published rating tools and journal articles were identified that had explicit criteria for assessing health-related Web sites. Of the 165 criteria extracted from these tools and articles, 132 (80%) were grouped under 1 of 12 specific categories, and 33 (20%) were grouped as miscellaneous because they lacked specificity or were unique. The most frequently cited criteria were those dealing with the content, design, and aesthetics of a site; disclosure of authors, sponsors, or developers; currency of information (includes frequency of update, freshness, and maintenance of site); authority of source; ease of use; and accessibility and availability. CONCLUSIONS: Many authors agree on the key criteria for evaluating health-related Web sites and efforts to develop consensus criteria may be helpful. The next step is to identify and assess a clear, simple set of consensus criteria that the general public can understand and use.

Access to health information and support: a public highway or a private road?

Information and communication technologies may help reduce health disparities through their potential for promoting health, preventing disease, and supporting clinical care for all. Unfortunately, those who have preventable health problems and lack health insurance coverage are the least likely to have access to such technologies. Barriers to access include cost, geographic location, illiteracy, disability, and factors related to the capacity of people to use these technologies appropriately and effectively. A goal of universal access to health information and support is proposed to augment existing initiatives to improve the health of individuals and the public. Both public- and private-sector stakeholders, particularly government agencies and private corporations, will need to collaboratively reduce the gap between the health information "haves" and "have-nots." This will include supporting health information technology access in homes and public places, developing applications for the growing diversity of users, funding research on access-related issues, ensuring the quality of health information and support, enhancing literacy in health and technology, training health information intermediaries, and integrating the concept of universal access to health information and support into health planning processes.

Consumer health information demand and delivery: implications for libraries.

Consumers are increasingly interested in information that will help them manage their own health and that of their families. Managed care and other health providers see consumer health information as one tool to help improve patient satisfaction and reduce costs. There is a huge and varied supply of such information, provided through myriad sources. This article summarizes findings from a preliminary assessment of consumer health information demand and delivery supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It highlights patterns of consumer interest and supply sources, identifies problems that confront those looking for information, and suggests a role for libraries as providers and interpreters of health information. The last publicly released general study on consumer health information was commissioned by General Mills in 1979. In the sixteen years since then, the scope of consumer health information has become huge and diverse; with increased responsibility for health, consumers have developed both broad interests and very specific needs. The Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a preliminary assessment of consumer health information demand and delivery to lay the foundation for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues. This article highlights some of the key findings that suggest a role for libraries as consumer health information providers and interpreters.