An evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 websites in terms of HON principles and using DISCERN tool

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Health Information and Libraries Journal Pub Date : 2022-08-10 DOI:10.1111/hir.12454
Reza Safdari PhD, Marsa Gholamzadeh MSc, Soheila Saeedi MSc, Mozhgan Tanhapour MSc, Sorayya Rezayi MSc
{"title":"An evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 websites in terms of HON principles and using DISCERN tool","authors":"Reza Safdari PhD,&nbsp;Marsa Gholamzadeh MSc,&nbsp;Soheila Saeedi MSc,&nbsp;Mozhgan Tanhapour MSc,&nbsp;Sorayya Rezayi MSc","doi":"10.1111/hir.12454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>As many people relied on information from the Internet for official scientific or academically affiliated information during the COVID-19 pandemic, the quality of information on those websites should be good.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The main purpose of this study was to evaluate a selection of COVID-19-related websites for the quality of health information provided.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Using Google and Yahoo, 36 English language websites were selected, in accordance with the inclusion criteria. The two tools were selected for evaluation were the Health on the Net (HON) Code and the 16-item DISCERN tool.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Most websites (39%) were related to information for the public, and a small number of them (3%) concerned screening websites in which people could be informed of their possible condition by entering their symptoms. The result of the evaluation by the HON tool showed that most websites were reliable (53%), and 44% of them were very reliable. Based on the assessment results of the Likert-based 16-item DISCERN tool, the maximum and minimum values for the average scores of each website were calculated as 2.44 and 4.25, respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Evaluation using two widely accepted tools shows that most websites related to COVID-19 are reliable and useful for physicians, researchers and the public.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47580,"journal":{"name":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","volume":"40 4","pages":"371-389"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9539229/pdf/HIR-9999-0.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hir.12454","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background

As many people relied on information from the Internet for official scientific or academically affiliated information during the COVID-19 pandemic, the quality of information on those websites should be good.

Objective

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate a selection of COVID-19-related websites for the quality of health information provided.

Method

Using Google and Yahoo, 36 English language websites were selected, in accordance with the inclusion criteria. The two tools were selected for evaluation were the Health on the Net (HON) Code and the 16-item DISCERN tool.

Results

Most websites (39%) were related to information for the public, and a small number of them (3%) concerned screening websites in which people could be informed of their possible condition by entering their symptoms. The result of the evaluation by the HON tool showed that most websites were reliable (53%), and 44% of them were very reliable. Based on the assessment results of the Likert-based 16-item DISCERN tool, the maximum and minimum values for the average scores of each website were calculated as 2.44 and 4.25, respectively.

Conclusion

Evaluation using two widely accepted tools shows that most websites related to COVID-19 are reliable and useful for physicians, researchers and the public.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于HON原则和使用DISCERN工具对COVID-19网站质量的评价。
背景:在新冠肺炎疫情期间,许多人依赖互联网获取官方科学或学术相关信息,因此这些网站的信息质量应该是好的。目的:本研究的主要目的是评估一些与covid -19相关的网站提供的健康信息的质量。方法:使用Google和Yahoo,按照纳入标准,选择36个英文网站。选择两种工具进行评估,分别是网络健康(HON)代码和包含16个项目的DISCERN工具。结果:大多数网站(39%)与公众信息有关,少数网站(3%)与筛选网站有关,人们可以通过输入症状来了解他们可能的病情。HON工具的评估结果显示,大多数网站是可靠的(53%),其中44%的网站非常可靠。根据基于likert的16项DISCERN工具的评估结果,计算出各网站平均得分的最大值为2.44,最小值为4.25。结论:使用两种被广泛接受的工具进行评估表明,大多数与COVID-19相关的网站对医生、研究人员和公众都是可靠和有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Information and Libraries Journal
Health Information and Libraries Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Health Information and Libraries Journal (HILJ) provides practitioners, researchers, and students in library and health professions an international and interdisciplinary forum. Its objectives are to encourage discussion and to disseminate developments at the frontiers of information management and libraries. A major focus is communicating practices that are evidence based both in managing information and in supporting health care. The Journal encompasses: - Identifying health information needs and uses - Managing programmes and services in the changing health environment - Information technology and applications in health - Educating and training health information professionals - Outreach to health user groups
期刊最新文献
Information literacy instruction by librarians is integrated into the doctor of pharmacy curriculum in the USA but requires evidence of impact. Exploring the use and usability of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) 'Evidence in your inbox' e-mail alert service. Understanding clinical library services as knowledge mobilisation activities: Mixed method evaluation of an Evidence Access service in a mental health trust. Introducing a new regular feature: Practice-Based Studies. End of an era.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1