Cited by 38Health Literacy and Information AccessibilitySmoking Behavior and CessationSocial Media in Health Education

An Assessment of the Quality and Usability of Smoking Cessation Information on the Internet

Cheh, Julie A., Ribisl, Kurt M., Wildemuth, Barbara M.·2003·Health Promotion Practice

Abstract

Little is known about the quality and usability of on-line health information. This analysis evaluated smoking cessation Web sites' content quality and usability. Thirty sites were analyzed to determine their adherence to established tobacco cessation guidelines and their accessibility, usability, credibility, and currency. Most explained addiction (86.7%) and mentioned nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (93.3%) and social support (93.3%). However, few explained potential side effects of NRT (33.3%) or which smokers should avoid using NRT (30.0%). Two sites advocated substituting smokeless tobacco or herbal cigarettes when quitting, and 16 (53.3%) provided information written at greater than an eighth-grade level. Few sites provided a search mechanism (40.0%) or offered text-only versions (30.0%), and most (83.3%) failed to indicate when content pages were last updated. Most sites adhered to established cessation guidelines. A small subset offered erroneous and potentially harmful information. Applying fundamental design principles would improve accessibility, usability, credibility, and currency.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1524839903004003012

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Reviews have attempted to rate the adequacy of behavior change websites.

    “We acknowledge the important role played by reviews that attempt to rate the adequacy of behavior change websites [4-10].”

    From The Information Architecture of Behavior Change Websites (2005) · cites this paper as [4]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheh, J. A., Ribisl, K. M., & Wildemuth, B. M.
Affiliations
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Health Promotion Practice
Published
2003-07
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
278-287
ISSN
  • 1524-8399 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6372
OpenAlex
W2163342085
Cited by
38
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
8.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Promotion Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
smoking cessation, health information websites, online health information quality, usability, credibility, currency, nicotine replacement therapy, health literacy, web accessibility, design principles
MeSH terms
Health Promotion, Humans, Information Services, Quality Control, United States, Bibliometrics, Smoking Cessation, Guideline Adherence, Internet

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