The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Diagnosis Blog: Checking Up on Health Blogs in the Blogosphere
Open accessAbstract
Objectives. We analyzed the content and characteristics of influential health blogs and bloggers to provide a more thorough understanding of the health blogosphere than was previously available. Methods. We identified, through a purposive–snowball approach, 951 health blogs in 2007 and 2008. All blogs were US focused and updated regularly. We described their features, topics, perspectives, and blogger demographics. Results. Approximately half of the bloggers in our sample were employed in the health field. A majority were female, aged in their 30s, and highly educated. Two thirds posted at least weekly; one quarter accepted advertisements. Most blogs were established after 2004. They typically focused on bloggers' experiences with 1 disease or condition or on the personal experiences of health professionals. Half were written from a professional perspective, one third from a patient–consumer perspective, and a few from the perspective of an unpaid caregiver. Conclusions. Data collected from health blogs could be aggregated for large-scale empirical investigations. Future research should assess the quality of the information posted and identify what blog features and elements best reflect adherence to prevailing norms of conduct.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study systematically cataloged 951 influential US health blogs in 2007–2008, describing their features, topics, perspectives, and blogger demographics. It found that health bloggers were mostly female, highly educated, often health professionals, and that most blogs focused on personal experiences with a disease or condition.
Key findings
- Of 951 blogs, 49.8% of bloggers worked in health professions; 56.8% were female, average age was 35.8 years, and two thirds held a master’s or doctoral degree.
- Most blogs were established after 2004 (93.5% from 2004–2008); 63.2% posted at least weekly, 12.5% posted daily, and 28.1% accepted commercial advertising.
- The most common topic was disease/disability experience (42.6%), followed by health policy/law/business (17.1%) and health research/news (15.1%); perspectives were professional (54.3%), patient–consumer (37.7%), and caregiver (8.0%).
- Among condition-specific blogs, mental health was most prevalent, mostly autism spectrum disorders (26.6%), bipolar disorder (25.5%), or eating disorders (22.9%); reproduction blogs mostly addressed infertility (81.5%), and chronic disease blogs often dealt with diabetes (41.2%).
Methods
- The authors used a purposive–snowball sampling approach to identify 951 US-focused, English-language health blogs updated at least once in the 6 months before data collection, during June–July 2007 and April–May 2008.
- The 2007 sample consisted of 622 blogs identified through search engines, blog aggregators, and blogrolls; the 2008 sample added 329 new eligible blogs from Healthcare 100, plus 114 already identified.
- Data abstraction coded blog features, topics, perspectives, and blogger demographics; most characteristics were identified through cursory review, with deeper examination of multiple posts when needed.
Limitations
- Stated: the sampling method had inherent bias because no sampling frame existed, so eligible blogs may have been missed; inactive or dead blogs and less widely linked blogs may have been excluded.
- Stated: the sample was likely biased toward popular, influential blogs, possibly underrepresenting some topics and overrepresenting others; blogs were sampled during a single year, providing only a snapshot.
- Stated: comprehensive sociodemographic data were unavailable because many bloggers remained anonymous, and self-reported information such as occupation was unverifiable; evident: the study is descriptive and cross-sectional, and the text does not report inter-coder reliability for the subjective coding.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
56 Own result · 17 Not checked yet · 11 Own method · 11 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That most of these blogs were written from a patient–consumer or caregiver perspective”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More than one quarter (27.4%) of these bloggers identified themselves as journalists or writers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Bloggers' demographic characteristics (gender, age, occupation, education) can be reliably identified from blog content.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only 6.5% dated from 1999 to 2003”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Bloggers' demographic characteristics (gender, age, occupation, education) can be reliably identified from blog content.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“approximately half (42.9%) were aged 30 to 39 years.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“30–39 42.9 (140)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Bloggers' demographic characteristics (gender, age, occupation, education) can be reliably identified from blog content.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among blogs about particular conditions, mental health was the most prevalent focus”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The primary perspective of each blogger can be reliably coded from blog descriptions and posts.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twelve percent did not provide a specialty designation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Bloggers' demographic characteristics (gender, age, occupation, education) can be reliably identified from blog content.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relatively few blogs (5.0%) focused on nutrition or personal experiences with weight loss or fat acceptance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The primary perspective of each blogger can be reliably coded from blog descriptions and posts.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only 12.7% did not post at all.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Bloggers' demographic characteristics (gender, age, occupation, education) can be reliably identified from blog content.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with most about autism spectrum disorders (26.6%), bipolar disorder (25.5%), or specific eating disorders (22.9%).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The primary perspective of each blogger can be reliably coded from blog descriptions and posts.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sponsors supported 15% of the blogs”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Bloggers' demographic characteristics (gender, age, occupation, education) can be reliably identified from blog content.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 27
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Like other bloggers—and like people who seek health information on the Internet2,52,53—health bloggers tend to be younger and better educated than the general population.6,7,54”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Technorati.com 2009. State of the blogosphere/2008. Available at: http://technorati.com/blogging/state-of-the-blogosphere. Accessed May 28, 2009 source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Lenhart A, Fox S. Bloggers: A Portrait of the Internet's New Storytellers Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2006 [Google Scholar] source
- Could not verifycites [54] McKenna L, Pole A. What do bloggers do: an average day on an average political blog. Public Choice 2008;134(1–2):97–108 [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper discusses the quality of online health information and the needs of different users, but it does not report the age or education of health bloggers. Searches for health bloggers and for age and education demographics found no passage supporting the comparison with the general population. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All blogs were US focused and updated regularly.”
- Also stated in: § METHODS · plain
“Eligibility criteria were that the blogs focused predominately on a health-related topic and on the United States, were written in English, and carried a new post at least once during the 6 months prior to data collection.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The sample of 951 blogs is representative of influential health blogs in the United States.
- Also stated in: § METHODS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some (12%) of the blogs featured multiple bloggers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Bloggers' demographic characteristics (gender, age, occupation, education) can be reliably identified from blog content.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although most physician blogs focused on physicians' own experiences, some also discussed other topics (health policy and law, health research and news).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The primary perspective of each blogger can be reliably coded from blog descriptions and posts.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some blogs from each perspective were personal (self-focused) and others were informational (outwardly focused).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The primary perspective of each blogger can be reliably coded from blog descriptions and posts.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Health blogs feature typical elements of blogging such as internal and external links, archives, blogrolls, and comment sections.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly half the blogs in our sample were written by health professionals, including a large number of physicians, nurses, and other direct-care workers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The high proportion of blogs focused on mental health, reproduction, HIV/AIDS, and disabilities”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may help patients and caregivers cope with particular diseases and conditions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Health blogs written by patient–consumers might prove useful to providers seeking to better understand the mental, emotional, and physical state of people living with specific conditions.61”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [61] Hillan J. Physician use of patient-centered weblogs and online journals. Clin Med Res 2003;1(4):333–335 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“possibly because women are more likely to coordinate health services for themselves and their families or because they experience greater morbidity and poorer health outcomes.55”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55] Misra D. Women's Health Data Book: A Profile of Women's Health in the United States 3rd ed.Washington, DC: Jacobs Institute of Women's Health; 2001 [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This suggests that scholars need not catalog thousands of blogs but instead can credibly focus on the most heavily linked ones, because they are the most widely read and influential.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Hindman M, Tsioutsiouliklis K, Johnson JA. “Googlearchy”: how a few heavily-linked sites dominate politics on the Web. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; March 31, 2003; Chicago, IL [Google Scholar] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This sampling approach is appropriate when the absence of a known population renders a truly random sample impossible to construct.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002 [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: There is no known population of health blogs, so a truly random sample cannot be constructed.
In the paper
“These online communities might serve to empower patient–consumers, providing people with the information necessary to care for themselves and bringing more equality to the provider–patient relationship.59”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] Fox S. Online Health Search Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2006 [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blogging might also serve to improve the broader public health.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Blogging's interactive features—blogrolls, links that appear in posts, and comment sections—might be especially well suited to creating virtual support networks.8,41”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Adams SA. Blog-based applications and health information: two case studies that illustrate important questions from consumer health informatics (CHI) research. Int J Med Inform 2010;79(6):e89–96 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [41] Kovic I, Lulic I, Brumni G. Examining the medical blogosphere: an online survey of medical bloggers. J Med Internet Res 2008;10(3):e28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Regarding gender, our findings contrasted with previous research showing that more blogs are written by men than by women.6,7,54”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] Technorati.com 2009. State of the blogosphere/2008. Available at: http://technorati.com/blogging/state-of-the-blogosphere. Accessed May 28, 2009 source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Lenhart A, Fox S. Bloggers: A Portrait of the Internet's New Storytellers Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2006 [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [54] McKenna L, Pole A. What do bloggers do: an average day on an average political blog. Public Choice 2008;134(1–2):97–108 [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Producing personal narratives can increase self-awareness, which can, in turn, promote active coping.56,57”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [56] Ridgway P. Restorying psychiatric disablity: learning from first person recovery narrratives. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2001;24(4):335–343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [57] Turkle S. Cyberspace and identity. Contemp Sociol 1999;28(6):643–648 [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, it may prove cathartic for health professionals dealing with stressful work environments.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The rapid increase in the number of health blogs suggests that the health blogosphere will continue to evolve in ways that differ from this snapshot in time.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The number of health blogs is rapidly increasing.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Large-scale empirical investigations of information posted on health blogs might better elucidate the state of health and health care.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, authors' representations may have been inaccurate.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, rather than keeping aspects of their identities hidden as they might do in their everyday interactions, blogging might allow people with potentially stigmatizing conditions to freely express themselves while sharing their experiences with others.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because it is likely that the sample was biased toward popular blogs of comparatively greater influence and prestige, some blog topics and areas may have been underrepresented (e.g., concerns of parents about the link between vaccination and autism) and others overrepresented (e.g., physician bloggers' interests).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although information posted on the Internet is not always reliable because anyone can post content,62,63”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [62] Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287(20):2691–2700 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [63] Purcell GP, Willson P, Delamothe T. The quality of information on the Internet. BMJ 2002;324(7337):557–558 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Health blogging communities could act as conduits for disseminating evidence-based information as well.43”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] Lagu T, Kaufman EJ, Asch DA, Armstrong K. Content of weblogs written by health professionals. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23(10):1642–1646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prevalence of certain types of blogs might also reflect significant social and political mobilization among communities of persons living with or at risk for particular conditions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blogs such as these might be devoted to mobilizing people to attend rallies, protests, or marches; sign petitions; raise funds; and support legislation.54”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [54] McKenna L, Pole A. What do bloggers do: an average day on an average political blog. Public Choice 2008;134(1–2):97–108 [Google Scholar] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blogs written by health professionals are noteworthy because they may serve to make health and medical information less arcane and more available to lay people while maintaining professional credibility.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Typically health providers are viewed as a trustworthy source.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also did not identify an unknown number of less widely linked blogs that were not captured by a search engine or connected to a blog aggregator or blogroll.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may be particularly true among those with HIV/AIDS and physical disability, groups that have a strong advocacy presence.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This project was approved by Brown University's institutional review board.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Professional organizations such as the American Public Health Association and the American Medical Association have developed guidelines regarding the quality and nature of health and medical information posted on the Internet.64,65”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] American Public Health Association Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet. Am J Public Health 2001;91(3):513–514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [65] Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet: principles governing AMA web sites. JAMA 2000;283(12):1600–1606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no known population of health blogs, so a truly random sample cannot be constructed.
“This sampling approach is appropriate when the absence of a known population renders a truly random sample impossible to construct.”
“This approach is especially appropriate for studying blogs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Bloggers' demographic characteristics (gender, age, occupation, education) can be reliably identified from blog content.
“Demographic information involved the identification of blogger gender, age, occupation, and education.”
“Most characteristics were readily identifiable through a cursory review of each blog.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The primary perspective of each blogger can be reliably coded from blog descriptions and posts.
“We also identified topics discussed by reading blog descriptions and posts, and we coded the primary perspective of each blogger.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The sample of 951 blogs is representative of influential health blogs in the United States.
“We analyzed the content and characteristics of influential health blogs and bloggers to provide a more thorough understanding of the health blogosphere than was previously available.”
“We systematically cataloged the content and characteristics of the most influential health blogs and bloggers to provide a more thorough understanding of the health blogosphere than has been available to date.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 2007 and 2008 samples can be combined into a single sample of 951 blogs.
“We identified health-related blogs during 2 periods: June to July 2007 and April to May 2008.”
“We analyzed a total of 951 blogs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Typically health providers are viewed as a trustworthy source.
“typically health providers are viewed as a trustworthy source.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many bloggers seek to remain anonymous.
“Because many bloggers seek to remain anonymous”
The paper relies on this without support.
The number of health blogs is rapidly increasing.
“The rapid increase in the number of health blogs”
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
“In a 2010 study of 921 health-related blogs, 43 % of bloggers were physicians [20].”
From Social media use by physicians: a qualitative study of the new frontier of medicine (2016) · cites this paper as [20]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ RESULTS
“Slightly more than two thirds of blogs”
§ RESULTS
“(34.3%) had a SiteMeter.”
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Qualitative research & evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (2002) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 15,530
Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods
Lotto, L. S., Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1986) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737008003329 · Cited by 10,357
Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods
Dijkstra, L. (1985) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(85)90239-5 · Cited by 2,913
Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E.-R. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.20.2691 · Cited by 1,871
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
Use of the Internet and E-mail for Health Care Information: Results From a National Survey
Baker, L., Wagner, T. H., Singer, S., & Bundorf, M. K. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.18.2400 · Cited by 1,129
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
Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires
(2004) · doi:10.1002/0471654728 · Cited by 855
Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v13i6.2125 · Cited by 640
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Fox S, 2008, The Engaged E-Patient Population
- Lenhart A, 2006, Bloggers: A Portrait of the Internet's New Storytellers
- Harrison JP, 2006, Nurs Econ, 24, 283
- Harty-Golder B, 2005, MLO Med Lab Obs, 37, 42
- Jacobs N, 2007, Profiles Healthc Commun, 23, 9
- Blass A, 2007, Diabetes Self Manag, 24, 39
- Genes N, 2009, J Emerg Med
- Sandars J, Med Teach, 1
- Zeng X, 2005, Perspect Health Inf Manag, 2, 6
- Karpf D, 2008, Polit Technol Rev, 33
- Pole A. Representation and blogs: advertising, credit claiming, and position taking? Paper presented at: American Political Science Association Annual Conference; August 31-September 3, 2006; Philadelphia, PA.
- Glaser BG, 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory
- Fox S, 2006, Online Health Search
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–128 of 128
Reconciling Social Media with Luxury Fashion Brands
Ozuem, W., & Tan, K. (2014) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6114-1.ch077 · Cited by 1
Variation in Health Blog Features and Elements by Gender, Occupation, and PerspectivePreprint
Pole, A., Batemen, C., & Miller, E. A. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1649644 · Cited by 1
Self-citationBissonnette-Maheux, V. (2014) · Cited by 1
Parenting Blog Coverage of the Autism-Vaccine Controversy
Bryant, A. (2012) · Syracuse University Libraries (Syracuse University)
Blogging: A Baby-Friendly Tool to Provide Support after Discharge for Breastfeeding Mothers
Ingalsbe, L. (2012) · SOPHIA (St. Catherine University)
Investigating the Effects and Persuasive Mechanisms of Expository and Narrative HPV Vaccine Messages
Parrish, A. J. (2015) · UKnowledge (University of Kentucky)
Exploring a Nursing Community Online
Fox, R. L., Abrahamson, K. A., & Anderson, J. G. (2013) · International Journal of Reliable and Quality E-Healthcare · doi:10.4018/ijrqeh.2013010105
Exploratory Analysis of Social E-health Behavior
Acadia, S. (2014) · University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · doi:10.12794/metadc500111
Southeastern pollination studies
Anderson, A. R. (2012)
Kaplan, V., Figueroa, A., & Vera, V. (2017) · Revista Chilena de Dermatología · doi:10.31879/rcderm.v32i2.103
Quality of Life Assessment of Diabetic patients from health-related blogsPreprint
Lenzi, A., Maranghi, M., Stilo, G., & Velardi, P. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.06548
BLOGGERS OF THE NEWS WEB PORTAL CENSOR.NET:COMPOSITION AND PUBLICATION ACTIVITY
Komova, М. (2020) · Scientific notes of Taurida National V I Vernadsky University series Philology Social Communications · doi:10.32838/2663-6069/2020.4-4/26
محمد, أ. ي. ع. ا., & خشبة, إ. ع. ح. (2021) · Al-Maǧallaẗ Al-Miṣriyyaẗ Lil Dirāsāt Al-Tiǧāriyyaẗ /Al-Maǧallaẗ Al-Miṣriyyaẗ Lil Dirāsāt Al-Tiǧāriyyaẗ · doi:10.21608/alat.2021.180046
Velardi, P., & Lenzi, A. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58080-3_255-1
Using blogging to engage nursing students in reflective practice
Ryan, C. L., Heidke, P., Blunt, N., Williamson, M. J., & Brien, D. L. (2017) · TEXT · doi:10.52086/001c.26855
Velardi, P., & Lenzi, A. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64573-1_255
An Unstructured Information Management Architecture Approach to Text Analytics of Cancer Blogs
Raghupathi, V., & Raghupathi, W. (2015) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8619-9.ch045
Types of Social Support Associated with Depression in the UK Adult Population
Soo, S. H. J., Tan, S. Y., & Yang, K. (2022) · Environment and Social Psychology · doi:10.18063/esp.v7.i1.810
Rains, S. A. (2022) · The International Encyclopedia of Health Communication · doi:10.1002/9781119678816.iehc0738
Hasan, S. S., Shaikh, H. J. F., Visahan, K., Navarro, S. M., Sulapas, I., & Shybut, T. B. (2022) · Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2022.10.008
Gruzd, A. A., Black, F. A., Le, T. N. Y., & Amos, K. (2023) · doi:10.32920/21992069.v1
Gruzd, A. A., Black, F. A., Le, T. N. Y., & Amos, K. (2023) · doi:10.32920/21992069
Tereszkiewicz, A., & Szczyrbak, M. (2024) · Language and Dialogue · doi:10.1075/ld.00176.ter
Affective Authority: Understanding Health and Wellness Influence on Social Media
Holroyd, D., & Wellman, M. L. (2026) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051261487534
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, E. A., & Pole, A.
- Affiliations
- Montclair State University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1514-1519
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- PMC
- PMC2901304
- OpenAlex
- W2017980577
- Semantic Scholar
- b9fef67ab05ab26f53b3bd470bf2be020fd51391
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 11.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Brown University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- health blogs, blogosphere, bloggers, online health information, blog content analysis, patient perspectives, health professionals' experiences, caregiver perspectives, health information quality
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Educational Status, Female, Health, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupations, Patients, Social Support, United States, Caregivers, Consumer Health Information, Young Adult, Blogging
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
