The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quality of health information for consumers on the web: A systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results
Abstract
The quality of online health information for consumers has been a critical issue that concerns all stakeholders in healthcare. To gain an understanding of how quality is evaluated, this systematic review examined 165 articles in which researchers evaluated the quality of consumer‐oriented health information on the web against predefined criteria. It was found that studies typically evaluated quality in relation to the substance and formality of content, as well as to the design of technological platforms. Attention to design, particularly interactivity, privacy, and social and cultural appropriateness is on the rise, which suggests the permeation of a user‐centered perspective into the evaluation of health information systems, and a growing recognition of the need to study these systems from a social‐technical perspective. Researchers used many preexisting instruments to facilitate evaluation of the formality of content; however, only a few were used in multiple studies, and their validity was questioned. The quality of content (i.e., accuracy and completeness) was always evaluated using proprietary instruments constructed based on medical guidelines or textbooks. The evaluation results revealed that the quality of health information varied across medical domains and across websites, and that the overall quality remained problematic. Future research is needed to examine the quality of user‐generated content and to explore opportunities offered by emerging new media that can facilitate the consumer evaluation of health information.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, Jr., Robert P., R., Richard L., C., & Brad, S. (1975) · doi:10.21236/ada006655 · Cited by 3,497
Charnock, D., Shepperd, S., Needham, G., & Gann, R. (1999) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105 · Cited by 3,329
Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E.-R. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.20.2691 · Cited by 1,871 · cited 13×
“Most indicators for credibility identified in this review overlapped with the technical criteria identified in Eysenbach et al. (2002) and the objective criteria identified in Silberg et al. (1997), and they were grouped into three categories: attribution, authorship, and disclosure.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialConsumer health information seeking on the internet: the state of the art
Cline, R. J. W. (2001) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/16.6.671 · Cited by 1,708
Persuasion theory and research
O’Keefe, D. J. (1990) · Cited by 1,555
Silberg, W. M. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.277.15.1244 · Cited by 1,151
Medicine 2.0: Social Networking, Collaboration, Participation, Apomediation, and Openness
Eysenbach, G. (2008) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1030 · Cited by 1,143
Who Is Rational?: Studies of individual Differences in Reasoning
Stanovich, K. E. (1999) · Cited by 1,114
Stanovich, K. E. (1999) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410603432 · Cited by 951
Cited by
Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations
Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2020) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127 · Cited by 1,170
Trust and Credibility in Web-Based Health Information: A Review and Agenda for Future Research
Sbaffi, L., & Rowley, J. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7579 · Cited by 537
Prebiotics: why definitions matter
Hutkins, R. W., Krumbeck, J. A., Bindels, L. B., Cani, P. D., Fahey, G., Goh, Y. J., Hamaker, B., Martens, E. C., Mills, D. A., Rastal, R. A., et al. (2016) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2015.09.001 · Cited by 437
Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., Gwizdka, J., & Trace, C. B. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12522 · Cited by 333
Self-citationCancer misinformation and harmful information on Facebook and other social media: a brief report
Johnson, S. B., Parsons, M., Dorff, T., Moran, M. S., Ward, J. H., Cohen, S. A., Akerley, W., Bauman, J., Hubbard, J., Spratt, D. E., et al. (2022) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djab141 · Cited by 210
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Sun, Y., & Xie, B.
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-29
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2071-2084
- ISSN
- 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
- 2330-1643
- OpenAlex
- W1904811031
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 62
- FWCI
- 2.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quality of health information for consumers on the web: A systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.23311
- The paper
- Zhang, Y., Sun, Y., & Xie, B. (2015). Quality of health information for consumers on the web: A systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23311
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.