Development of a SelfAssessment Method for Patients to Evaluate Internetbased Health Information

1
Development of a Self-Assessment Method for
Patients to Evaluate Internet-based Health
Information
2
Josette Jones, RNc, Licentiate MIS, Licentiate
Nursing, Doctoral Student School of
Nursing University of Wisconsin -
Madison Academic Advisor Patricia Flatley
Brennan, RN, Ph.D., FAAN, FACMI
3
Purpose of the study

• Development of a Self-Assessment Method for
  patients to evaluate quality and relevance of
  health care oriented websites
• Validation of the Stability and Consistency the
  Self-Assessment Method for website evaluation
• the use of the tool
• the conceptualization

4
Background and Significance

• The Internet hosts a large number of accurate
  health-oriented websites with endless
  opportunities to inform, teach and connect
  patients.
• Health care consumers need a way to judge the
  quality and relevance of the information provided
  on the Internet.

5
Background and Significance

• Quality as perceived by the general users
  relates not only to accuracy of content but
  rather to presentation, perceived trust, clear
  credentials, and other markers that tend to give
  information 'weight'.
• Patients will accept or use a WWW page when the
  information is perceived as relevant to his/her
  situation.

6

• Helping patients determine the quality and
  relevance of health information found on the
  Internet is a key responsibility for clinicians
  who want to use network technologies to promote
  the health of patients and provide them with
  clinical service.

7
Development of a Self-Assessment Method for
Evaluation of Websites
8
Study Design

• Summary of criteria/guidelines for evaluating
  WebPages, published in journal articles and
  on-line publications
• Categorization of the criteria through lexical
  and contextual analysis

9
Study Design

• Comparison to the criteria to what the
  general user of the WWW perceives as quality
  and/or relevance.
• Conceptualization of four criteria considered as
  indicative of quality and relevance as perceived
  by the general user of information on the
  Internet.

10
Quality and Relevance Criteria
11
The proposed Self-Assessment Method for
Evaluating Websites consists of nine unrelated
questions
12
Prompts to Patients

• Match of interest
• Clear and sufficient information
• Novel info
• Compelling case
• Support from graphics and pictures
• Ease of reading and understanding
• Up-to-date information
• Familiarity with publisher
• Facilitate behavior change

?
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Validation of the Stability and Consistency the
Self-Assessment Method for Website Evaluation
16
Sample

• 16 students from a small Midwestern university
  participated in the testing of the method
• Female, Caucasian
• Average age 22 year
• Medical/clinical knowledge none to basic
• Internet skills varying from none to good

17
Procedure

• Participants were asked to list 3 topics related
  to health and to search the web for information
  on these topics
• The test was repeated after 3 weeks

18
Testing the Use of the Self-Assessment Method

• Identified a web site
• Answered each item on the questionnaire with
  yes or no.

19
(No Transcript)
20
Validating the Conceptualized Criteria

• Each of the four criteria were validated for
  quality and relevance using a 4-point Likert
  scale. 1not relevant 2somewhat
  relevant 3quite relevant 4very relevant

21
Quality and Relevance Criteria
22
(No Transcript)
23
Matching Perceptions of Quality and Relevance
to Questionnaire

• Each questionnaire item was validated as useful
  to determine the quality and relevance using a
  4-point Likert scale.
• 1not relevant 2somewhat relevant 3quite
  relevant 4very relevant

24
Perception of Quality and Relevance Ranked by
Modal Score - Frequency
25
Discussion

• The study suggests that
• Consumers evaluate quality and information
  against a simple set of indirect criteria
• Design (Q5) and facilitation of behavior change
  (Q9) are rated less helpful in evaluating the
  quality and relevance of health related websites
  than the other questions.

26
Limitations of the study

• Limited size of the convenience sample
• Demographics of participants
• No data available from patient sample.
• No elicitation of unrecognized needs
• No measurement of the number of steps it may take
  to locate the information

27
Acknowledgments

• Dr. Patricia Flatley Brennan
• The HeartCare team in Madison and Cleveland
• University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
• Dr. M. Oleson - and -Gyda Bjornsdottir RN, MSN

28

• Josette Jones, RNC,
• Licentiate Nursing, Licentiate MIS
• wouterjf_at_uwec.edu
• Academic Advisor
• Patricia Flatley Brennan, RN,
• Ph.D., FAAN, FACMI

This study was supported by the HeartCare
Project funded through NIH grant R01-LM06249