Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31518240›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2018

A Tool That Assesses the Evidence, Transparency, and Usability of Online Health Information: Development and Reliability Assessment.

Maureen Dobbins, Susannah Watson, Kristin Read, Kelly Graham, Reza Yousefi Nooraie, Anthony J Levinson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Quality of Infectious Disease Hospital Websites in Poland in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Maureen DobbinsThe National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1968-6765
Susannah WatsonHealth Evidence™, School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7376-383X
Kristin ReadThe National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5901-244X
Kelly GrahamHealth Evidence™, School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6299-494X
Reza Yousefi NooraieInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9002-7121
Anthony J LevinsonDivision of e-Learning Innovation, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5240-6449
Hamilton Health Sciences · CAMcMaster University Medical Centre · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe internet is commonly used by older adults to obtain health information and this trend has markedly increased in the past decade. However, studies illustrate that much of the available online health information is not informed by good quality evidence, developed in a transparent way, or easy to use. Furthermore, studies highlight that the general public lacks the skills necessary to distinguish between online products that are credible and trustworthy and those that are not. A number of tools have been developed to assess the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information; however, many have not been assessed for reliability or ease of use.

objectiveThe first objective of this study was to determine if a tool assessing the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information exists that is easy and quick to use and has good reliability. No such tool was identified, so the second objective was to develop such a tool and assess it for reliability when used to assess online health information on topics of relevant to optimal aging.

methodsAn electronic database search was conducted between 2002 and 2012 to identify published papers describing tools that assessed the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information. Papers were retained if the tool described was assessed for reliability, assessed the quality of evidence used to create online health information, and was quick and easy to use. When no one tool met expectations, a new instrument was developed and tested for reliability. Reliability between two raters was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each item at two time points. SPSS Statistics 22 software was used for statistical analyses and a one-way random effects model was used to report the results. The overall ICC was assessed for the instrument as a whole in July 2015. The threshold for retaining items was ICC>0.60 (ie, "good" reliability).

resultsAll tools identified that evaluated online health information were either too complex, took a long time to complete, had poor reliability, or had not undergone reliability assessment. A new instrument was developed and assessed for reliability in April 2014. Three items had an ICC<0.60 (ie, "good" reliability). One of these items was removed ("minimal scrolling") and two were retained but reworded for clarity. Four new items were added that assessed the level of research evidence that informed the online health information and the tool was retested in July 2015. The total ICC score showed excellent agreement with both single measures (ICC=0.988; CI 0.982-0.992) and average measures (ICC=0.994; CI 0.991-0.996).

conclusionsThe results of this study suggest that this new tool is reliable for assessing the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information that is relevant to optimal aging.

Indexed as

Consumer Health Informationconsumer health standardscritical appraisalinternet standardsknowledge translationonline health informationPatient Education as standardsPatient Education as Topicreliability analysis

Identifiers

PMID31518240
PMCPMC6715399
OpenAlexW2799784024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.