ArticleDigital health
Analyzing opioid-use disorder websites in the United States: An optimized website usability study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Usability Evaluation of a Knowledge Graph-Based Dementia Care Intelligent Recommender System: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As the United States continues to tackle the opioid epidemic, it is imperative for digital healthcare organizations to provide Internet users with accurate and accessible online resources so that they can make informed decisions with regards to their health. Objective: The primary objectives were to adapt and modify a previously established usability methodology from literature, apply this modified methodology in order to perform usability analysis of opioid-use-disorder (OUD)-related websites, and make important recommendations that OUD-related digital health organizations may utilize to improve their online presence. Methods: A list of 208 websites (later refined) was generated for usability testing using a modified Google Search methodology. Four keywords were chosen and used in the search: "DEA-X Waiver Training", "opioid-use-disorder (OUD) Initiatives", "Buprenorphine Assisted Treatment", and "Opioid-Use Disorder Websites". Usability analysis was performed concurrently with optimization of the methodology. OUD websites were analyzed and scored on several usability categories established by previous literature. Results: "DEA-X Waiver Training" yielded websites that scored the highest average in "Accessibility" (0.84), while "Opioid-Use Disorder Websites" yielded websites that scored the highest average in "Content Quality" (0.67). "Buprenorphine Assisted Treatment" yielded websites that scored the highest average across "Marketing" (0.52), "Technology" (0.89), "General Usability" (0.69), and "Overall Usability" (0.68). "Technology" and "Marketing" were the highest and lowest scoring usability categories, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the study findings, we recommend that digital organizations in the OUD space should improve their "General Usability" score by making their websites easier to find online. Doing so, may allow users, especially individuals in the OUD space, to discover accurate information that they are seeking. Based on the study findings, we also made important recommendations that OUD-related digital organizations may utilize in order to improve website usability as well as overall reach.
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.