ArticleUniversal access in the information society2022
Evaluating the accessibility of public health websites: An exploratory cross-country study.
Article in Universal access in the information society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.
- Terminology and Definitions of Racial Health Equity in Prominent Health Websites: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the Readability, Accessibility, and Quality of Online Health Information on Opioid Use Disorder: A Comparative Analysis of Government and Non-Government Websites.Advances in health information science and practice · 2026Article
- The good, the bad, and the ugly: A qualitative evaluation of web-based COVID-19 vaccine communication in Canada.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Addressing Digital Disparities in Alzheimer Disease by Improving Access to Alzheimer Resources for Spanish-Speaking Latino or Latina Individuals in Los Angeles County: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Bridging the digital divide for people with aphasia: a study protocol for codesigning web accessibility tools and guidelines.BMJ open · 2025Article
- How accessible are the websites of health services for people who have had a stroke?International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Recommendations to advance digital health equity: a systematic review of qualitative studies.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- Testing Two Online Symptom Checkers With Vulnerable Groups: Usability Study to Improve Cognitive Accessibility of eHealth Services.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Designing a Web-Based Navigation Tool to Support Access to Youth Mental Health Services: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Customization options in consumer health information materials on type-2 diabetes mellitus-an analysis of modifiable features in different types of media.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- The Evaluation of the Suitability, Quality, and Readability of Publicly Available Online Resources for the Self-Management of Fear of Cancer Recurrence.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Disability digital divide: survey of accessibility of eHealth services as perceived by people with and without impairment.BMC public health · 2023Article
- The Triple-S framework: ensuring scalable, sustainable, and serviceable practices in educational technology.International journal of educational technology in higher education · 2023Article
- Evaluating breast cancer websites targeting Arabic speakers: empirical investigation of popularity, availability, accessibility, readability, and quality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- The Factors Associated With Nonuse of and Dissatisfaction With the National Patient Portal in Finland in the Era of COVID-19: Population-Based Cross-sectional Survey.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Article
- An Assessment of Accessibility and Usability of Saudi Online FinTech Services for People with Disabilities.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public health websites are regarded as official references that citizens of any country rely on for domestic and individual health affairs. For people with disabilities, public health resources are often of greater importance; they additionally provide disability context-specific information. However, to leverage the benefits of such resources for the widest demographic groups, Web accessibility requirements should be met at an acceptable level (e.g., WCAG 2.0, Level AA). This study evaluates the accessibility of a number of public health websites from 25 countries. The choice of the selected websites is determined by the extent of the COVID-19 outbreak in the corresponding countries and their rank as of late April, 2020. Ultimately, this study aims at shedding light on the current situation of accessibility to health information and pinpointing the aspects where accessibility to information falls short in public health websites. Using different evaluation tools, the overall results show that the vast majority of public health websites, of a number of different countries, still have many critical accessibility barriers, especially with regards to the perception of information and operability of the interface items. The findings of this study suggest a need for major efforts toward ensuring accessible public health resources in most of the evaluated websites. As this pattern has repeatedly occurred in many relevant studies in different parts of the world, legislation along with educating Web developers regarding Web accessibility requirements and universal design principles become an urgent necessity.
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.