ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016
Making Quality Health Websites a National Public Health Priority: Toward Quality Standards.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.
- Terminology and Definitions of Racial Health Equity in Prominent Health Websites: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- High-Quality eHealth Websites for Information on Endometriosis: Systematic Search.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of eHealth and mHealth Interventions Supporting Children and Young People Living With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- An Interactive Web-Based Intervention to Achieve Healthy Weight in Young Children.Clinical pediatrics · 2018Trial
- Current status and actions needed for disseminating medical information to the public at National Centers in Japan.Global health & medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of validity, reliability, and readability of AI chatbots for gestational diabetes mellitus: a multi-model comparative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessment of the Quality and Readability of Online Information on Thumb-Sucking Habit in Children.Cureus · 2025Article
- The Influence of Medical Expertise and Information Search Skills on Medical Information Searching: Comparative Analysis From a Free Data Set.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Appropriateness of Web-Based Resources for Home Blood Pressure Measurement and Their Alignment With Guideline Recommendations, Readability, and End User Involvement: Environmental Scan of Web-Based Resources.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- First insight into oral health misinformation in Jordan; an analysis of web content and information-seeking behaviors.PloS one · 2025Article
- Adaptation of e-health impact questionnaire into Turkish: a validity and reliability study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Designing visual hierarchies for the communication of health data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Bone health education in individuals with spinal cord injury or disease-the Bare Bones Podcast Series: plan it, produce it, post it!Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the quality and accuracy of breast cancer knowledge among persian language websites.BMC health services research · 2022Review
- Social Media, Digital Health Literacy, and Digital Ethics in the Light of Health Equity.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022Article
- Developing, Implementing, and Evaluating an Artificial Intelligence-Guided Mental Health Resource Navigation Chatbot for Health Care Workers and Their Families During and Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Cross-sectional Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Digital Scientific Platform for Independent Content in Neurology: Rigorous Quality Guideline Development and Implementation.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Health-wellness resources on Canadian immigrant service provider organizations' websites: A content, navigability, usability, and credibility analysis towards service & asset mapping.Journal of migration and health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost US adults have limited health literacy skills. They struggle to understand complex health information and services and to make informed health decisions. The Internet has quickly become one of the most popular places for people to search for information about their health, thereby making access to quality information on the Web a priority. However, there are no standardized criteria for evaluating Web-based health information. Every 10 years, the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP) develops a set of measurable objectives for improving the health of the nation over the coming decade, known as Healthy People. There are two objectives in Healthy People 2020 related to website quality. The first is objective Health Communication and Health Information Technology (HC/HIT) 8.1: increase the proportion of health-related websites that meet 3 or more evaluation criteria for disclosing information that can be used to assess information reliability. The second is objective HC/HIT-8.2: increase the proportion of health-related websites that follow established usability principles.
objectiveThe ODPHP conducted a nationwide assessment of the quality of Web-based health information using the Healthy People 2020 objectives. The ODPHP aimed to establish (1) a standardized approach to defining and measuring the quality of health websites; (2) benchmarks for measurement; (3) baseline data points to capture the current status of website quality; and (4) targets to drive improvement.
methodsThe ODPHP developed the National Quality Health Website Survey instrument to assess the quality of health-related websites. The ODPHP used this survey to review 100 top-ranked health-related websites in order to set baseline data points for these two objectives. The ODPHP then set targets to drive improvement by 2020.
resultsThis study reviewed 100 health-related websites. For objective HC/HIT-8.1, a total of 58 out of 100 (58.0%) websites met 3 or more out of 6 reliability criteria. For objective HC/HIT-8.2, a total of 42 out of 100 (42.0%) websites followed 10 or more out of 19 established usability principles. On the basis of these baseline data points, ODPHP set targets for the year 2020 that meet the minimal statistical significance-increasing objective HC/HIT-8.1 data point to 70.5% and objective HC/HIT-8.2 data point to 55.7%.
conclusionsThis research is a critical first step in evaluating the quality of Web-based health information. The criteria proposed by ODPHP provide methods to assess website quality for professionals designing, developing, and managing health-related websites. The criteria, baseline data, and targets are valuable tools for driving quality improvement.
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.