CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 244Health Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media in Health EducationWeb and Library Services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Revisiting the online health information reliability debate in the wake of “web 2.0”: An inter-disciplinary literature and website review

Adams, Samantha A.·2010·International Journal of Medical Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this inter-disciplinary literature review was to explore renewed concerns about the reliability of online health information in light of the increasing popularity of web applications that enable more end-user-generated content ("web 2.0").Methods The findings are based on a literature and web review. Literature was collected at four different points between October 2006 and October 2008 and included 56 sources from 10 academic disciplines. The web review consisted of following 6 blogs (including both new and archived posts, with comments) and one wiki for a period of 1.5 months and assessing the content for relevancy on six points, totaling 63 sources altogether.Results The reliability issues that are identified with respect to "web 2.0" reiterate more general concerns expressed about the web over the last 15 years. The difference, however, lies in the scope and scale of potential problems. Social scientists have also pointed to new issues that can be especially relevant for use of web 2.0 applications in health care. Specific points of renewed concern include: disclosure of authorship and information quality, anonymity and privacy, and the ability of individuals to apply information to their personal situation. Whether or not end-users understand what social scientists call "negative network externalities" is a new concern. Finally, not all reliability issues are negative-social networking and the shift from text-based information to symbolic information, images or interactive information, are considered to enhance patient education and to provide opportunities to reach diverse groups of patients.Conclusions Interactive and collaborative web applications undeniably offer new opportunities for reaching patients and other health care consumers by facilitating lay information creation, sharing and retrieval. However, researchers must be careful and critical when incorporating applications or practices from other fields in health care. We must not easily dismiss concerns about reliability as outdated. Specific issues related to use of newly popular web applications for health purposes must be addressed. Nonetheless, the articles reviewed here also clearly show that potential problems can be addressed and the positive aspects of the technologies embraced.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.006

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Childs, 2005, Editorial: blogging for health, Health Inform. Internet, 45, 1
  2. Scopus [Database on the Internet], Elsevier Publishing (US), New York, NY, C2008, Available from: http://www.info.scopus.com, last accessed: 27 October 2008.
  3. PubMed [Database on the Internet], National Library of Medicine (US), Bethesda, MD, Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/, last accessed: 27 October 2008.
  4. Google Scholar [Database on the Internet], Google (US), Mountain View, CA, C2009, Available from: http://scholar.google.com, last accessed: 27 October 2008.
  5. Health 2.0 Conference: User-generated Healthcare [Homepage on the Internet], Health 2.0 Conference, San Francisco, Available from: http://www.health2con.com/, last accessed: 8 September 2009.
  6. Zimmer, 2008, The Faustian Bargain with web 2.0, First Monday Podcast [Monthly Online Audio Program]
  7. Hart, 2008, The rise of alter egos in everybody's space: after oversharing, users recast their online personas, Washington Post
  8. Genes, 2006, Diabetes patient offers goldmine of information and support, Medscape Med. Stud., 8
  9. Baoill, 2004, Conceptualizing the weblog: Understanding what it is in order to understand what it may be interfacings, J. Contemp. Media Stud.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 244

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Adams, S. A.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Adams, Samantha A.
ORCID
Adams, Samantha A.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-06
Volume
79
Issue
6
Pages
391-400
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.006
OpenAlex
W2051889487
Cited by
244
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
  • Erasmus+
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Web and Library Services
Keywords
online health information, information reliability, Web 2.0, blogs, wikis, authorship disclosure, information quality, patient education, lay health information
MeSH terms
Humans, Medical Informatics, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Internet, Consumer Health Information

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