ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Accessibility Analysis of Worldwide COVID-19-Related Information Portals.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Inertial Sensors for Hip Arthroplasty Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effects of Visual Communication Design Accessibility (VCDA) Guidelines for Low Vision on Public and Open Government Health Data.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, communication technology has demonstrated its usefulness in sharing and receiving health data and communicating with the public. This study evaluated the accessibility of 199 websites containing official COVID-19 information related to medical schools, governments, ministries, and medical associations, obtained from the Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research website. We used the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 to evaluate web accessibility, using a six-phase process with an automatic review tool. The study results reveal that the highest number of barriers encountered are concentrated in the perceivable principle with 6388 errors (77.8%), followed by operability with 1457 (17.7%), then robustness with 291 (3.5%), and finally understandability with 78 errors (0.9%). This study concludes that most COVID-19-related websites that provide information on the context of the pandemic do not have an adequate level of accessibility. This study can contribute as a guide for designing inclusive websites; web accessibility should be reviewed periodically due to technological advances and the need to adapt to these changes.
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.