ArticlePloS one2026
Mapping the quality of Norwegian health information -Does it facilitate informed choices?
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventions to promote critical health literacy: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Co-Creation of Interventions to Promote Critical Health Literacy in the Community: Study Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Mapping the quality of Norwegian health information -Does it facilitate informed choices?PloS one · 2026Article
- Mapping the Quality of German-Language Health Information on the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimHealth literacy refers to the ability to use relevant information to make informed choices. However, the quality of the available information influences how well individuals can make those choices. Evidence-based recommendations for the development and design of health information have recently been published. In this study, we aimed to map the quality of Norwegian web-based health information across selected public health domains.
methodsUsing a multiple-cross-sectional design, we assessed information in 16 health domains relevant to infants, children, and youth. Convenience samples were drawn using structured Google searches. Three independent raters conducted the quality appraisal by applying the 19 criteria of the Mapping the quality of health information checklist. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using T-coefficients. Information quality was statistically described. To explain variance in quality, mean quality scores were compared across three independent variables: the type of the health problem, target group, and provider class.
resultsAcross the surveys, 1,948 health information materials from 64 subdomains were assessed. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (mean T = .89/.90). On average, the materials complied with 22% (range: 0-73%, standard deviation = .09) of the current minimal standard. Differences between types of problems or target groups were marginal. No differences were found between information provided by health authorities, health services, or commercial entities.
conclusionNorwegian web-based health information is not of sufficient quality to facilitate informed health choices made by citizens. These findings apply across a wide range of public health domains relating to infants, children, and youth. In the absence of appropriate health information of acceptable quality, estimates of the public's level of health literacy may need reconsideration. Further research is needed to appraise the quality of information in other health domains and countries.
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.