|
|
Reputable Sites Click on one of these subject headings to be taken to the links
How can I tell if I'm looking at a high quality & reliable website? Adapted from "Health on the Net" Summary of “How to judge the quality of a Web site” Adapted from www.judgehealth.org.uk Useful questions to ask when reading research Adapted from "Applying Research to Practice"
How can I tell if I am looking at a high quality and reliable web site? Adapted from "Health on the Net" booklet by Gail Robinson. Internet Magazine May 2000
(1) Good sites should tell you to use the information in conjunction with other health care professionals.
(2) Good sites often sign up to, and abide by, a Code of Conduct eg Internet Health Coalition or Health on the Net Foundation. A site devoted to informing others about health fraud & quackery is Quack Watch.
(3) Good sites are often produced by reputable organisations that you have heard of and trust eg: BBC, National Asthma Campaign, World Health Organisation, etc.
(4) Good sites often come a long way down the search results of search engines! Top listed sites on a search engine may not have the highest quality information.
(5) Double check the information on one site with information from at least another one source.
(6) Good sites should list contact information of the authors and/or organisation on their site (not just Email addresses) eg addresses, telephone numbers, etc.
(7) Is the editorial content clearly separated from any sponsorship or advertising? It makes sense that any site that allows these edges to blur, could be potentially dangerous.
(8) Any article you read, purporting to be a medical article, should have clear references and source data that you can check (eg a Post Graduate Medical Centre library). Links are often supplied to source data.
(9) Make sure that any claims about a treatment, drug, therapy are supported by balanced evidence. If there are no drawbacks to it, or there are no occasions when it is less effective, treat the information with caution.
(10) Look for a date on the information. Remember that research is an ongoing process, so the older the information, the greater the likelihood that new information will have replaced it.
(11) Good sites often have a Confidentiality Policy, the highest standard sites don't track your way around the site and then sell on the details to a third party.
(12) Good sites will not claim to be the only authority on a particular area. They also don't criticise the information provided by other sites.
(13) Check out where the site is based. Drug laws, availability, etc vary widely between different countries.
(14) Sites should show how they are funded: this site is a personal web site & doesn't receive a penny from anyone!
(15) Sites should declare any advertisements; this site has no paid advertising. There is unpaid advertising when using the site's search engine. Summary of “How to judge the quality of a Web site” These guidelines aim to help health consumers make informed decisions about Web sites. This leaflet summarises the things to look for that will help you judge if a Web site is of good quality.
Look
for sites of trustworthy organisations with a good reputation, e.g. well-known,
reputable organisations; organisations you already know and trust; sites
recommended by a health professional or a support group.
Find
out which organisation or individual has produced the site, e.g. professional
organisations, support groups, government departments, commercial organisations,
individuals.
Find
out the purpose of the site, e.g. its aims or mission, its audience, how the
site was developed and if health consumers were involved.
Find
out where the site gets its funding from, e.g. financial accounts, names of
sponsors, the types of adverts on the site.
Look
for the date when the site last updated or reviewed. Information on the site
should also be dated, with an update / review date given.
Look
at how the information is written, e.g. discussing different sides of an issue;
not sensational or extreme; with correct grammar and spelling; simply written
and easy to understand if aimed at health consumers; in other languages if aimed
at non-English speakers.
Look
for the following details that indicate that the information is likely to be
reliable, e.g. the name of the author, their job title, place of work,
qualifications, potential conflicts of interest; the date the information was
written, with an update or review date; the sources of information the author
used; the author’s contact details; links to related resources; descriptions
of quality checks or editorial processes. Detailed
assessment of the correctness of medical information requires help from a health
professional or a lay-expert. A lay-expert is a member of the public who has
spent a lot of time reading and learning about a specific medical condition.
Medical
research literature is very complex and needs specialised knowledge to
understand it fully. Support groups often explain about research on their Web
sites or in their newsletters.
Personal
experiences of patients and their carers are important sources of information.
Check that they are clearly marked as personal experiences. Be cautious about
individual patient or carer sites. Check the medical information they give
carefully.
Find
out the country of origin of the site. Health information on non-UK sites can be
different to that provided on UK sites, e.g. different health systems and
cultural practices, use of different terminology, recommending different
treatments, different availability of treatments and drugs.
Look
for ways you can contact the organisation to discuss issues, ask for advice or
comment on the site, e.g. an e-mail address, a postal address, a phone number,
electronic forms.
Assess
links to other Web sites too. The site should explain why and how they have
chosen these links. It should be made clear that you are linking to another
site.
Look
at the site’s terms and conditions and disclaimers. These should cover issues
such as, medical information, privacy, copyright, responsibilities for accuracy
of information and for any harm caused by using the site.
Kitemarks
are signs or logos indicating that the site has been 'endorsed' in some way by
another organisation. They do not necessarily mean that the health information
is correct. The absence of a kitemark is not a sign of poor quality. Only a
minority of sites apply for them.
Look
at how well the site is designed, e.g. personal information should be kept
private and secure; the site should be easy to use; the site should be easy to
access; adverts should be clearly marked as such, and discrete; the site should
have an attractive appearance, without the need to use extra software.
Assess
the quality of interactive facilities too. Look for the presence of experienced
members; requirement for rules of polite, supportive behaviour; presence of
people ensuring the rules are followed; requirement to register to use the
facility.
Useful questions to ask when reading a research report Adapted from "Applying Research to Practice" booklet published in the Nursing Times
(a) Does the introduction tell you about the research problem and convince you that the research is important?
(b) Is the research question clearly stated and relevant, and can it be answered by research?
(c) Is the review of literature comprehensive and up-to-date? Does the research logically and critically evaluate previous research?
(d) Are the aims and objectives of the research clear and relevant?
(e) Are the research design and methods of collecting data the most appropriate to answer the research question?
(f) Was there a pilot study to test the feasibility of the proposed study? Was the reliability and validity of the data collection methods assessed?
(g) Were the methods of analysing the data clearly described and appropriate?
(h) Are the results fully reported and not an un-proved "slant" put onto the results?
(i) Does the discussion of the results relate to the research question, aims and objectives?
(j) Is there a description of the limitations imposed on the research methods, and the effect these restrictions have on the results described?
(k) Are the recommendations and implications discussed in enough detail to enable the findings to be implemented?
Date this page was
lasted edited:
18/01/2006
|
Please click on the underlined e-mail address here info@firstaidtraining.org.uk to e-mail me with UK first aid questions, comments, web site suggestions, enquiries or non-working hyperlinks.© 2005 First Aid Training
|
First Aid Training
subscribe to the