Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review.

By Gunther Eysenbach, J. Powell, Oliver Kuss, E. Sa. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2002

2,020 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4336bc1a1d7ec99e84a92741d622c9f535db792d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Modelling users' trust in online health rumours: an experiment-based study in China (2021, background): “Our key premise here was that three concepts, comprehensiveness, informativeness, and readability of the information together capture the information quality of online rumours (Banerjee and Chua, 2014; Berland et al., 2001; Doll and Torkzadeh, 1988; Eysenbach et al., 2002; Ferster and Hu, 2017; Grew”
Using the Internet for Surveys and Health Research (2002, background): “• Exploration of the ̀ epidemiology of health information' on the Web [1-2].”
Risk communication for public health emergencies. (2007, background): “Most Internet sites do not have a scientific review process, and many sites contain inaccuracies or biases (13, 37, 74).”
Effects of Online Health Sources on Credibility and Behavioral Intentions (2010, background): “In fact, information completeness is regarded as the most important information criterion in patients’ decision making (Cline & Haynes, 2001; Eysenbach et al., 2002), given its influence on patient decision making (Dutta-Bergman, 2004).”
Infodemiology and Infoveillance: Framework for an Emerging Set of Public Health Informatics Methods to Analyze Search, Communication and Publication Behavior on the Internet (2009, background): “Much of the discussion in the late ’90s about the quality of health information on the Internet centered around the concern that low quality information on the Internet could be detrimental to public health [10], and it was in this context that the term was coined.”
Categories and Subject Descriptors (2001, background): “Yet less than half of the medical information available online has been reviewed by doctors [2] and a systematic metaanalysis of health web site evaluations noted that 70% of the studies reviewed concluded that quality is a problem on the Internet [3].”
A Behavior Change Model for Internet Interventions (2009, background): “Given that there is a significant amount of misinformation on the Internet [34], providing accurate, clear, and simple information is critical to creating and delivering efficacious applications that will be well-received.”
Understanding Health Literacy for Strategic Health Marketing: eHealth Literacy, Health Disparities, and the Digital Divide (2008, background): “However, an increasing amount of research has also concluded that the health information contained on the Internet is of substandard quality (for a review see Eysenbach et al., 2002).”
Cyberchondria: Studies of the escalation of medical concerns in Web search (2009, background): “Much has been written in the medical community about the unreliability of Web content in general [Eysenbach 1998; Jadad and Gagliardi 1998; Eysenbach et al. 2002] or content about speci.c conditions such as cancer [Biermann et al. 1999].”
Navigating the digital divide: A systematic review of eHealth literacy in underserved populations in the United States (2016, background): “15 included in the review 2 additional papers identified 31 excluded Did not measure eHealth literacy (24) Did not evaluate underserved populations (7) 115 excluded International (35) Pediatric study (7) Case study (10) Tool development (6) Review/discussion paper (49) Med Ed (6) Abstract (2) 60 dup”