ArticleJournal of patient experience2024
Assessing Credibility: Quality Criteria for Patients, Caregivers, and the Public in Online Health Information-A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Relationship Between Physician Self-Disclosure and Patient Acquisition in Digital Health Markets: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Digital health information-seeking behaviors and trust in AI-based physician chatbots among patients with hypertension: a cross-sectional survey in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- An assessment of the quality and readability level of online content on urinary tract infection treatment in Spanish and English.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Florida Newborn Screening Program Education Campaign.International journal of neonatal screening · 2025Article
- Developing and Validating a User-Friendly Quality Benchmark: Enhancing the Integrity of Online Health Information for Patients and Clinicians.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing reliance on the Internet for health information has raised concerns about patients using unreliable and potentially harmful content. This study aimed to establish quality criteria to assist patients, caregivers, and the public in evaluating the reliability of online health information. We conducted focus group workshops with 25 participants recruited across Canada, proficient in either English or French. The participants included 13 females and 12 males, with the majority having a college or higher level of education. Through an in-depth analysis comparing various aspects, the participants determined 6 quality criteria: authorship, reliability, usefulness, accessibility, readability, and privacy & confidentiality. The findings from this study present a comprehensive list of quality criteria that will contribute to developing evidence-based quality benchmarks and policy frameworks in multiple languages. These criteria are not only valid but also well-suited to the diverse needs and preferences of patients and the public, providing a reliable framework for evaluating online health information through an evidence-based approach.
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.