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
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 We must not easily dismiss concerns about reliability as outdated.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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Similar problems may be encountered with traditional websites, however, social media tools allow people to download information, regardless of who the user and what the quality of the information is, resulting in its rapid dissemination online.22”
From Social media and Internet usage of orthopaedic surgeons (2017) · cites this paper as [22]
Citations
Cites
4 What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
O’Reilly, T. (2012) · New York University Press eBooks · doi:10.18574/nyu/9780814764077.003.0008 · Cited by 5,623
Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: from production to produsage
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2978 · Cited by 2,063
What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education
Anderson, P. F. (2007) · Cited by 1,182
Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I. D. C., & Wheeler, S. (2006) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-6-41 · Cited by 1,154
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
Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility
Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2007) · Cited by 1,036
Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1035134.1035163 · Cited by 968
Bridging the gap: a genre analysis of Weblogs
Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Bonus, S., & Wright, E. (2004) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2004.1265271 · Cited by 924
Boulos, M. N. K., & Wheeler, S. (2007) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x · Cited by 894
The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture
Keen, A. (2007) · Cited by 668
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Childs, 2005, Editorial: blogging for health, Health Inform. Internet, 45, 1
- Scopus [Database on the Internet], Elsevier Publishing (US), New York, NY, C2008, Available from: http://www.info.scopus.com, last accessed: 27 October 2008.
- 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.
- Google Scholar [Database on the Internet], Google (US), Mountain View, CA, C2009, Available from: http://scholar.google.com, last accessed: 27 October 2008.
- 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.
- Zimmer, 2008, The Faustian Bargain with web 2.0, First Monday Podcast [Monthly Online Audio Program]
- Hart, 2008, The rise of alter egos in everybody's space: after oversharing, users recast their online personas, Washington Post
- Genes, 2006, Diabetes patient offers goldmine of information and support, Medscape Med. Stud., 8
- 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
Moorhead, S. A., Hazlett, D. E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J. K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1933 · Cited by 2,517
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
Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information.
Chen, X., Hay, J. L., Waters, E. A., Kiviniemi, M. T., Biddle, C., Schofield, E., Li, Y., Kaphingst, K., & Orom, H. (2018) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2018.1511658 · Cited by 548
Reviewing social media use by clinicians: Table 1
von Muhlen, M., & Ohno-Machado, L. (2012) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000990 · Cited by 319
Social media and health care, part I: literature review of social media use by health care providers
Farsi, D. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/23205 · Cited by 299
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)
- 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
- 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