Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Acta Medica Marisiensis

The Journal of The University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Targu-Mures

6 Issues per year

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

The Quality of Online Health-Related Information – an Emergent Consumer Health Issue

Valentin Nădăşan
Published Online: 2016-12-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/amma-2016-0048


The Internet has become one of the main means of communication used by people who search for health-related information. The quality of online health-related information affects the users’ knowledge, their attitude, and their risk or health behaviour in complex ways and influences a substantial number of users in their decisions regarding diagnostic and treatment procedures.

The aim of this review is to explore the benefits and risks associated with using the Internet as a source of health-related information; the relationship between the quality of the health-related information available on the Internet and the potential risks; the multiple conceptual components of the quality of health-related information; the evaluation criteria for quality health-related information; and the main approaches and initiatives that have been implemented worldwide to help improve users’ access to high-quality health-related information.

Keywords: consumer health; health-related information; quality assessment criteria; e-health codes of conduct; automatic assessment of health-related information


  • 1. Sechrest RC. The Internet and the physician-patient relationship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(10):2566-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1440-3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 2. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1-2):24-8.Google Scholar

  • 3. Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001;16(6):671-92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 4. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(20):2691-700.Google Scholar

  • 5. Kealey E, Berkman CS. The relationship between health information sources and mental models of cancer: findings from the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey. J Health Commun. 2010;15 Suppl 3:236-51. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.522693.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6. Zhang Y. Beyond quality and accessibility: Source selection in consumer health information searching. J Assn Inf Sci Tec. 2014;65:911–927. doi:10.1002/asi.23023CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7. DiFonzo N, Robinson NM, Suls JM, Rini C. Rumors about cancer: content, sources, coping, transmission, and belief. J Health Commun. 2012;17(9):1099-115. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2012.665417.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8. Weaver III JB, Thompson NJ, Weaver SS, Hopkins GL. Healthcare non-adherence decisions and Internet health information. Computers in Human Behavior. 2009;25(6):1373-80.Google Scholar

  • 9. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285(20):2612-21.Google Scholar

  • 10. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Catania J, Lee K, Zapert K, Turner R. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: national U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. Physicians. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3):e17.Google Scholar

  • 11. Hämeen-Anttila K1, Nordeng H, Kokki E, Jyrkkä J, Lupattelli A, Vainio K, Enlund H. Multiple information sources and consequences of conflicting information about medicine use during pregnancy: a multinational Internet-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e60. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2939.Google Scholar

  • 12. Kata A. Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm--an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine. 2012;30(25):3778-89. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13. Gangarosa E, Galazka A, Wolfe C, Phillips L, Gangarosa R, Miller E, et al. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Lancet 1998;351(9099):356–61.Google Scholar

  • 14. Bhandari N, Shi Y, Jung K. Seeking health information online: does limited healthcare access matter? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(6):1113-7. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002350.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 15. Fox S, Duggan M. Health Online 2013. Pew Internet Project. Online: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf Accessed: September 30, 2016.

  • 16. Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2011. Online http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Social_Life_of_Health_Info.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.

  • 17. Andreassen HK, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Chronaki CE, et al. European citizens’ use of E-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 18. Euroepan Commission. Information society statistics. Eurostat. Sept. 2010 Online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed: June 14, 2011.

  • 19. TradeAds Interactive. Profilul utilizatorului de Internet – editia II. Bursa de reclamă. 2011. Online: http://blog.tradeads.eu/2011/01/31/profilul-utilizatorului-de-internet-editia-ii/ Accessed: January 31, 2011.

  • 20. Institutul Român pentru Evaluare şi Strategie. Românii şi internetul. Studiu privind utilizarea Internetului şi comportamentul internautic al românilor. 2011. Online: http://www.ires.com.ro/uploads/articole/ires_romanii-si-internetul-2011_analiza.pdf. Accessed: October 1, 2016.

  • 21. Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, Large S. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1600.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 22. Dart J, Gallois C, Yellowlees P. Community health information sources--a survey in three disparate communities. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(1):186-96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 23. Dutta-Bergman MJ. Health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors among Internet health information seekers: population-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(2):e15.Google Scholar

  • 24. Demiris G. Consumer Health Informatics: Past, Present, and Future of a Rapidly Evolving Domain. Yearb Med Inform. 2016;Suppl 1:S42-7. doi: 10.15265/IYS-2016-s005.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 25. Houston TK, Ehrenberger HE. The potential of consumer health informatics. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2001;17(1):41-7.Google Scholar

  • 26. Hoffmann D, Schwartz J. Stopping deceptive health claims: the need for a private right of action under federal law. Am J Law Med. 2016;42(1):53-84.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 27. Dyer KA. Ethical challenges of medicine and health on the Internet: a review. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):E23.Google Scholar

  • 28. Unal B, Critchley JA, Capewell S. Missing, mediocre, or merely obsolete? An evaluation of UK data sources for coronary heart disease. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(7):530-5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29. Rajani R, Mukherjee D, Chambers J. Murmurs: how reliable is information on the internet? Int J Cardiol. 2007;119(1):112-3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 30. Ching T, Roake JA, Lewis DR. Net-based information on varicose vein treatments: a tangled web. N Z Med J. 2010;123(1323):9-15.Google Scholar

  • 31. Killeen S, Hennessey A, El Hassan Y, Killeen K, Clarke N, Murray K, Waldron B. Gastric cancer-related information on the Internet: incomplete, poorly accessible, and overly commercial. Am J Surg. 2011;201(2):171-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.015.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 32. Ream E, Blows E, Scanlon K, Richardson A. An investigation of the quality of breast cancer information provided on the internet by voluntary organisations in Great Britain. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(1):10-5. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.019.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 33. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, Hunt KK, Ames FC, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, Pollock RE, Musen MA, Singletary SE. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):577-81.Google Scholar

  • 34. Ni Riordain R, McCreary C. Head and neck cancer information on the internet: type, accuracy and content. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(8):675-7. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.10.006.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 35. López-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F. The quality of internet sites providing information relating to oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(9):e95-8. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.017.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 36. Dulaney C, Barrett OC, Rais-Bahrami S, Wakefield D, Fiveash J, Dobelbower M. Quality of Prostate Cancer Treatment Information on Cancer Center Websites. Cureus. 2016;8(4):e580. doi: 10.7759/cureus.580.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 37. Lawrentschuk N, Abouassaly R, Hackett N, Groll R, Fleshner NE. Health information quality on the internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation. Urology. 2009;74(5):1058-63. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.091.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 38. Minzer-Conzetti K, Garzon MC, Haggstrom AN, Horii KA, Mancini AJ, Morel KD, Newell B, Nopper AJ, Frieden IJ. Information about infantile hemangiomas on the Internet: how accurate is it? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57(6):998-1004.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 39. Pérez-López FR. An evaluation of the contents and quality of menopause information on the World Wide Web. Maturitas. 2004;49(4):276-82.Google Scholar

  • 40. Bedell SE, Agrawal A, Petersen LE. A systematic critique of diabetes on the world wide web for patients and their physicians. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73(9-10):687-94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 41. Thakurdesai PA, Kole PL, Pareek RP. Evaluation of the quality and contents of diabetes mellitus patient education on Internet. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53(3):309-13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 42. McGill JF, Moo TA, Kato M, Hoda R, Allendorf JD, Inabnet WB, Fahey TJ 3rd, Brunaud L, Zarnegar R, Lee JA. World wide what? The quality of information on parathyroid disease available on the Internet. Surgery. 2009;146(6):1123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.09.016.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 43. Ostry A, Young ML, Hughes M. The quality of nutritional information available on popular websites: a content analysis. Health Educ Res. 2008;23(4):648-55.Google Scholar

  • 44. Sutherland LA, Wildemuth B, Campbell MK, Haines PS. Unraveling the web: an evaluation of the content quality, usability, and readability of nutrition web sites. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005;37(6):300-5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 45. Nădăşan V, Moldovan G, Tarcea M, Ureche R. Edified or confused? How complete and accurate is the information about vitamin B12 on the Romanian Websites? Revista de Igienă şi Sănătate Publică, Timişoara 2011;61(4):49-57.Google Scholar

  • 46. Griffiths KM, Christensen H. Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2000;321(7275):1511-5.Google Scholar

  • 47. Burneo JG. An evaluation of the quality of epilepsy education on the Canadian World Wide Web. Epilepsy Behav. 2006;8(1):299-302.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 48. Tench CM, Clunie GP, Dacre J, Peacock A. An insight into rheumatology resources available on the World Wide Web. Br J Rheumatol. 1998;37(11):1233-5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 49. Lewiecki EM, Rudolph LA, Kiebzak GM, Chavez JR, Thorpe BM. Assessment of osteoporosis-website quality. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(5):741-52.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 50. Tiller G, Rea S, Silla R, Wood F. Burns first aid information on the Internet. Burns. 2006;32(7):897-901.Google Scholar

  • 51. Butler DP, Perry F, Shah Z, Leon-Villapalos J. The quality of video information on burn first aid available on YouTube. Burns. 2013;39(5):856-9. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2012.10.017.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 52. Nădăşan V, Vancea G, Georgescu AP, Tarcea M, Abram Z. The Credibility, Completeness and Accuracy of Information about First Aid in Case of Choking on the Romanian Websites. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2011;6(3):18-26.Google Scholar

  • 53. Morr S, Shanti N, Carrer A, Kubeck J, Gerling MC. Quality of information concerning cervical disc herniation on the Internet. Spine J. 2010;10(4):350-4. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.009.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 54. Greene DL, Appel AJ, Reinert SE, Palumbo MA. Lumbar disc herniation: evaluation of information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(7):826-9.Google Scholar

  • 55. Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, Sood V, Kubeck J, Paulino C, Merola AA. Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the Internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(23):2695-700.Google Scholar

  • 56. Soot LC, Moneta GL, Edwards JM. Vascular surgery and the Internet: a poor source of patient-oriented information. J Vasc Surg. 1999;30(1):84-91.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 57. Yermilov I, Chow W, Devgan L, Makary MA, Ko CY. What is the quality of surgery-related information on the internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(4):580-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.034.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 58. Nădăşan V, Voidăzan S, Tarcea M, Ureche R. The quality of information about influenza on the Romanian Internet. Acta Medica Transilvanica 2011;2(3):312-4.Google Scholar

  • 59. 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; 314:1875–81.Google Scholar

  • 60. Nădăşan V, Moldovan O. The Completeness and Accuracy of Information about Coeliac Disease on the Romanian Websites. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2016;11(3):72-83.Google Scholar

  • 61. Lau AY, Gabarron E, Fernandez-Luque L, Armayones M. Social media in health--what are the safety concerns for health consumers? HIM J. 2012;41(2):30-5.Google Scholar

  • 62. Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(3):e23.Google Scholar

  • 63. Fullwood MD, Kecojevic A, Basch CH. Examination of YouTube videos related to synthetic cannabinoids. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2016;pii:/j/ijamh.ahead-of-print/ijamh-2016-0073/ijamh-2016-0073.xml. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2016-0073.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 64. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling and filtering of information, BMJ 1998;317:1496-1500.Google Scholar

  • 65. Ahlbrandt J, Brammen D, Majeed RW, Lefering R, Semler SC, Thun S, Walcher F, Röhrig R. Balancing the need for big data and patient data privacy--an IT infrastructure for a decentralized emergency care research database. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:750-4.Google Scholar

  • 66. López L, Green AR, Tan-McGrory A, King R, Betancourt JR. Bridging the digital divide in health care: the role of health information technology in addressing racial and ethnic disparities. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37(10):437-45.Google Scholar

  • 67. Domanski K, Kleinschmidt KC, Schulte JM, Fleming S, Frazee C, Menendez A, Tavakoli K. Two cases of intoxication with new synthetic opioid, U-47700. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2016:1-5. [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2016.1209763CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 68. Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA 2002;287(21),2869-71.Google Scholar

  • 69. Food and Drug Administration. Consumer Health Information. FDA 101: Health Fraud Awareness. May 2009. Online: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ProtectYourself/HealthFraud/UCM167504.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2016.

  • 70. National Institute on Aging. Online Health Information: Can You Trust It? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. December 2014. Online: https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/publication/online-health-information. Accessed: September 15, 2016.

  • 71. National Cancer Institute. Using Trusted Resources. National Institutes of Health. March 2015. Online: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/managing-care/using-trusted-resources. Accessed: September 15, 2016.

  • 72. Jadad A, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the internet: navigation to knowledge or to Babel. JAMA 1998;279(8):611-4.Google Scholar

  • 73. Gagliardi A, Jadad A. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 2002;324:569-73.Google Scholar

  • 74. Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(1):13-9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 75. Wilson P. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):598-602.Google Scholar

  • 76. Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: a review. BMJ 1999; 318:647-9.Google Scholar

  • 77. Walji M, Sagaram S, Sagaram D, Meric-Bernstam F, Johnson C, Mirza NQ, Bernstam EV. Efficacy of Quality Criteria to Identify Potentially Harmful Information: A Cross-sectional Survey of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Web Sites. J Med Internet Res 2004;6(2):e21.Google Scholar

  • 78. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health related Websites. J Med Internet Res 2002;4(3):e15. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4.3.e15CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 79. Chiang MF, Cole RG, Gupta S, Kaiser GE, Starren JB. Computer and World Wide Web accessibility by visually disabled patients: problems and solutions. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50(4):394-405.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 80. Davis JJ. Disenfranchising the disabled: the inaccessibility of Internet-based health information. J Health Commun. 2002;7(4):355-67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 81. Oakland T, Lane HB. Language, Reading, and Readability Formulas: Implications for Developing and Adapting Tests. International Journal of Testing 2004;4(3):239-52.Google Scholar

  • 82. Leroy G, Helmreich S, Cowie JR, Miller T, Zheng W. Evaluating online health information: beyond readability formulas. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008:394-8.Google Scholar

  • 83. Kim H, Goryachev S, Rosemblat G, Browne A, Keselman A, Zeng-Treitler Q. Beyond surface characteristics: a new health text-specific readability measurement. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007:418-22.Google Scholar

  • 84. Leroy G, Miller T. A Balanced Approach to Health Information Evaluation: A Vocabulary-Based Naïve Bayes Classifier and Readability Formulas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2008;59:1409-19.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 85. McInnes N, Haglund BJ. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011;36(4):173-89. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2010.542529.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 86. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1310-5.Google Scholar

  • 87. Stausberg J, Fuchs J, Hüsing J, Hirche H. Health care providers on the World Wide Web: quality of presentations of surgical departments in Germany. Med Inform Internet Med. 2001;26(1):17-24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 88. Sillence E, Briggs P, Harris PR, Fishwick L. A framework for understanding trust factors in web-based health advice. Int J Human-Computer Studies. 2006 64(8):697-713.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 89. Health On the Net Foundation. The HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites. Online: http://www.hon.ch/Global/index.html. Accesed: September 15, 2016.

  • 90. iHealthCoalition. eHealth Code of Ethics. Online: http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/ehealth-code-of-ethics/. Accessed: September 15, 2016.

  • 91. Kemper DW. Hi-Ethics: Tough principles for earning consumer trust. URAC/Internet Healthcare Coalition. 2001. Online: http://www.imaginologia.com.br/dow/manual/Hi-Ethics.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.

  • 92. Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet: Principles governing AMA websites. JAMA 2000;283:1600–16.Google Scholar

  • 93. International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations. IFPMA Code Of Practice 2012. Online: http://www.lif.se/globalassets/etik/dokument/ifpma_code_of_practice_2012.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.

  • 94. DISCERN. Background. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/background_to_discern.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.

  • 95. Net Scoring: criteria to assess the quality of Health Internet information. Online: http://www.chu-rouen.fr/netscoring/netscoringeng.html. Accessed: October 05.2016.

  • 96. Boulos MNK, Roudsari AV, Gordon C, Gray JAM. The Use of Quality Benchmarking in Assessing Web Resources for the Dermatology Virtual Branch Library of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) J Med Internet Res 2001;3(1):e5.Google Scholar

  • 97. Eysenbach G. Design and evaluation of consumer health information websites. In: Lewis D, Eysenbach G, Kukafka R, Jimison H, Stavri Z (eds.): Consumer Health Informatics. Springer New York 2005.Google Scholar

  • 98. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission – URAC. Accreditation Programs - What is URAC’s Health Web Site Accreditation? Online: https://www.urac.org/accreditation-and-measurement/accreditation-programs/all-programs/health-web-site/. Accessed: October 05.2016.

  • 99. Risk A, Dzenowagis J. Review Of Internet Health Information Quality Initiatives. J Med Internet Res 2001;3(4):e28. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3.4.e28CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 100. Intute: Medicine including dentistry. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/medicine/. Accessed: 24.06.2011.

  • 101. U.S. National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. About MedlinePlus. Online: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/aboutmedlineplus.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.

  • 102. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONcodeHunt. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Patients/hunt.html, and http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/hunt.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.

  • 103. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONselect. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Patients/honselect.html and http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/honselect.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.

  • 104. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/MedHunt. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/medhunt.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.

  • 105. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONmedia. Online: http://services.hon.ch/cgi-bin/HONmedia. Accessed: October.05.2016.

  • 106. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About healthfinder.gov Online: https://healthfinder.gov/aboutus/. Accessed: October.05.2016.

  • 107. U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed, Online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/. Accessed: October.05.2016.

  • 108. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions. How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2002. Online: http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/05/22/vital-decisions-a-pew-internet-health-report/ Accessed: October 15, 2016.

  • 109. Griffiths KM, Tang TT, Hawking D, Christensen H. Automated Assessment of the Quality of Depression Websites J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e59.Google Scholar

  • 110. Wang Y, Liu Z. Automatic detecting indicators for quality of health information on the Web. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(8):575-82.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 111. Aphinyanaphongs Y, Fu LD, Aliferis CF. Identifying unproven cancer treatments on the health web: addressing accuracy, generalizability and scalability. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:667-71.Google Scholar

  • 112. MedCIRCLE. Collaboration for Internet Rating, Certification, Labeling and Evaluation of Health Information. Online: http://www.medcircle.org/about.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.

  • 113. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites. Comput Biol Med. 1998;28(5):603-10.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 114. Health On the Net Foundation, he HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites (HONcode). Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Patients/Conduct.html. Accessed: October 5, 2016.

  • 115. Health On the Net Foundation, The services offered by HON. Online: http://www.hon.ch/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.

  • 116. DISCERN - About this site. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/about.php Accessed: October 5, 2016.

  • 117. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1999;53:105-11.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 118. Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 2004;19:440-6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 119. Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Coquard O, Fernandez S, Khan R, Billieux J, Zullino D. Brief DISCERN, six questions for the evaluation of evidence-based content of health-related websites. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(1):33-7.Google Scholar

  • 120. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC). About URAC. Online: http://www.urac.org/about/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.

  • 121. Overview of URAC’s Health Web Site Accreditation Review. Online: http://www.urac.org/consumers/overview.aspx. Accessed: 26.06.2011.

  • 122. Intute / Frequently asked questions. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/faq.html. Accessed: June 27, 2011.

  • 123. Eysenbach G, Yihune G, Lampe K, Cross P, Brickley D. Quality management, certification and rating of health information on the Net with MedCERTAIN: using a medPICS/RDF/XML metadata structure for implementing eHealth ethics and creating trust globally. J Med Internet Res. 2000;2(2 Suppl):2E1.Google Scholar

  • 124. World Health Organization. WHO proposal would raise quality of internet health information. Press Release WHO/72 November 13, 2000. Online: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-72.html. Accessed: June 26, 2011.

  • 125. Solomonides AE, Mackey TK. Emerging ethical issues in digital health information. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24(3):311-22. doi: 10.1017/S0963180114000632.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 126. Mackey TK, Eysenbach G, Liang BA, Kohler JC, Geissbuhler A, Attaran A. A call for a moratorium on the .health generic top-level domain: preventing the commercialization and exclusive control of online health information. Global Health. 2014;10:62. doi: 10.1186/s12992-014-0062-z.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 127. Mackey TK, Liang BA, Kohler JC, Attaran A. Health domains for sale: the need for global health Internet governance. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):e62. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 128. Alexandru A, Ianculescu M, Jitaru E, Pârvan M. Edusan – Sistem complex integrat privind educaţia pentru sănătate şi profilaxie. Revista Română de Informatică şi Automatică. 2006;16(4).Google Scholar

  • 129. Nădăşan V – O evaluare a calității informațiilor medicale din spațiul virtual românesc, Teză de doctorat, Universitatea de Medicină şi Farmacie Tîrgu Mureş, Nov. 2011.Google Scholar

  • 130. Nădăşan V, Ancuceanu R, Tarcea M, Grosar CM, Ureche R. General characteristics of the Romanian Medical Webscape. Acta Medica Marrisiensis 2011;57(2):94-7.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-10-07

Accepted: 2016-10-12

Published Online: 2016-12-30

Published in Print: 2016-12-01

Citation Information: Acta Medica Marisiensis, Volume 62, Issue 4, Pages 408–421, ISSN (Online) 2247-6113, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/amma-2016-0048.

Export Citation

© 2016 Nădăşan Valentin, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Ashley H Ng, Timothy C Crowe, Kylie Ball, and Bodil Rasmussen
JMIR Diabetes, 2017, Volume 2, Number 2, Page e29

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in