ArticleThe Western journal of medicine2001
Information superhighway or billboards by the roadside? An analysis of hospital web sites.
Article in The Western journal of medicine, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the prevalence of hospital web sites, the types of information provided within these sites, and the relationship of information to institutional characteristics.
designOnline search of hospital web sites over a 6-week period in late 1999. Web sites were abstracted for content. Bivariate comparisons were made of hospital profit status and ownership or operation by a multihospital network.
participantsCalifornia acute care hospitals and their web sites.
main outcome measuresOperation of web sites and web site content.
resultsAmong 390 California hospitals, 242 (62%) had easily identifiable web sites, 59 (15%) had no web sites, and 89 (23%) had sites identified only after telephone follow-up. Hospitals without sites were more likely not-for-profit, small, rural, or unaffiliated. The presentation of information was inconsistent, although most (93%) provided basic contact information. Many hospitals provided health content information (70%) or mentioned health classes (65%), but few guaranteed the quality of this information. Patient care features (online health profiles, risk identification, e-mail) were infrequent (13%) and rudimentary. Product advertising was frequent (54%) but was often nonhealth-related and unobtrusive. Of the 36% of hospitals that reported information on quality, few of the designated measures were valid and reliable measures of quality. Overall, 21% of hospitals reported accreditation (Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) status, and for-profit hospital web sites were more likely to report this accreditation.
conclusion[corrected] Consumers should be aware of current limitations in using information on hospital web sites. In the future, hospitals may better realize the potential of web sites for the delivery of health care information and patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.