Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Jan 31;7(1):24-8.
doi: 10.4066/AMJ.2014.1900. eCollection 2014.

Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape

Eamonn Fahy  1 , Rohan Hardikar  2 , Adrian Fox  1 , Sean Mackay  2
Affiliations
Review

Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape

Eamonn Fahy et al. Australas Med J. .

Abstract

Background: The popularity of the Internet has enabled unprecedented access to health information. As a largely unregulated source, there is potential for inconsistency in the quality of information that reaches the patient.

Aims: To review the literature relating to the quality indicators of health information for patients on the Internet.

Method: A search of English language literature was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar and EMBASE databases.

Results: Many articles have been published which assess the quality of information relating to specific medical conditions. Indicators of quality have been defined in an attempt to predict higher quality health information on the Internet. Quality evaluation tools are scoring systems based on indicators of quality. Established tools such as the HONcode may help patients navigate to more reliable information. Google and Wikipedia are important emerging sources of patient health information.

Conclusion: The Internet is crucial for modern dissemination of health information, but it is clear that quality varies significantly between sources. Quality indicators for web-information have been developed but there is no agreed standard yet. We envisage that reliable rating tools, effective search engine ranking and progress in crowd-edited websites will enhance patient access to health information on the Internet.

Keywords: Internet; health; patient information; quality evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. International Telecommunications Union. World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2013 17th Ed. [cited 2013 July 5]. Available from: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/statistics/2013/ITU_Key...
    1. Pallen M. Guide to the Internet: The world wide web. BMJ. 1995;311:1552. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7019.1552. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ. 1997 Jun 28;314(7098):1875–9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1875. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eysenbach G. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002 May 22-29;287(20):2691–700. doi:10.1001/jama.287.20.2691. - PubMed
    1. Burkell J. Health Information Seals of Approval: What do they Signify? Information, Communication & Society. 2004 Dec;7(4):491–509. doi: 10.1080/1369118042000305610.

LinkOut - more resources