Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish.

By G. Berland, M. Elliott, L. Morales, J. Algazy, Richard L. Kravitz, Michael S. Broder, D. Kanouse, Jorge A. Muñoz, Juan-Antonio Puyol, Marielena Lara and 3 more. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2001

1,325 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dcc024a648f32657017621441cb6af36862a384e

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

Information Seeking and Avoiding in Health Contexts (2002, background): “Some have argued that patients do little to seek information in health care encounters (e.g., Beisecker, 1990 ).”
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).”
How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews (2002, background): “5 Although the quality of medical information on the world wide web has been an area of increasing concern, 6–11 the factors that contribute to popularity of websites have not been systematically studied.”
Modelling users' trust in online health rumours: an experiment-based study in China (2021, background): “Several studies have highlighted readability as an important dimension of health information quality (Berland et al., 2001; Ferster and Hu, 2017; Grewal and Alagaratnam, 2013; Rowley et al., 2015; Walsh and Volsko, 2008), and various scholars have suggested that users put greater trust in…”
Assessing Readability of Patient Education Materials: Current Role in Orthopaedics (2010, background): “Investigators from various medical fields have consistently demonstrated patient education materials are often written at a level too difficult to read and be comprehended by a substantial portion of the adult US population [3, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18, 31, 35, 36].”
Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. (2001, background): “point out, when sites or systems rely on voluntary self-assessments, reliability and validity are unknown (Berland et al., 2001).”
Online information, extreme communities and internet therapy: Is the internet good for our mental health? (2007, background): “Studies have reported varying, but an overall level of poor quality information for disorders such as depression (Berland et al., 2001; Griffiths & Christensen, 2000, 2002; Lissman & Boehnlein, 2001), schizophrenia (Kisely et al., 2003), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Kisely et al., 2003)”
How Internet Users Find, Evaluate, and Use Online Health Information: A Cross-Cultural Review (2004, neutral): “Unconcerned health seekers, about half of all ever,” or “never.””
Shortcomings of health information on the Internet. (2003, background): “These new ways of disseminating medical information carry important risks of conflict of interest and over-consumption of medication (Meyers, 2001).”
Cognitive walkthrough for the web (2002, background): “Such problems are also prominent in the analysis of medical websites, where non-medically trained users have a great deal of trouble finding relevant information and comprehending descriptions of medical conditions and treatment recommendations [3].”
Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: Multivariate results from the Pew surveys (2006, background): “And Berland et al. (2001) reported low readability of Internet health information. A national representative phone survey in 2000 found that half strongly agreed or agreed that they were comfortable using the Internet for health information (Licciardone, Smith-Barbara & Coleridge, 2001). Only 30% of”