Cited by 36Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorSocial Media in Health Education

Use of Internet Audience Measurement Data to Gauge Market Share for Online Health Information Services

Open access
Wood, Fred B, Benson, Dennis, LaCroix, Eve-Marie, Siegel, Elliot R, Fariss, Susan·2005·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The transition to a largely Internet and Web-based environment for dissemination of health information has changed the health information landscape and the framework for evaluation of such activities. A multidimensional evaluative approach is needed. OBJECTIVE: This paper discusses one important dimension of Web evaluation-usage data. In particular, we discuss the collection and analysis of external data on website usage in order to develop a better understanding of the health information (and related US government information) market space, and to estimate the market share or relative levels of usage for National Library of Medicine (NLM) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) websites compared to other health information providers. METHODS: The primary method presented is Internet audience measurement based on Web usage by external panels of users and assembled by private vendors-in this case, comScore. A secondary method discussed is Web usage based on Web log software data. The principle metrics for both methods are unique visitors and total pages downloaded per month. RESULTS: NLM websites (primarily MedlinePlus and PubMed) account for 55% to 80% of total NIH website usage depending on the metric used. In turn, NIH.gov top-level domain usage (inclusive of NLM) ranks second only behind WebMD in the US domestic home health information market and ranks first on a global basis. NIH.gov consistently ranks among the top three or four US government top-level domains based on global Web usage. On a site-specific basis, the top health information websites in terms of global usage appear to be WebMD, MSN Health, PubMed, Yahoo! Health, AOL Health, and MedlinePlus. Based on MedlinePlus Web log data and external Internet audience measurement data, the three most heavily used cancer-centric websites appear to be www.cancer.gov (National Cancer Institute), www.cancer.org (American Cancer Society), and www.breastcancer.org (non-profit organization). CONCLUSIONS: Internet audience measurement has proven useful to NLM, with significant advantages compared to sole reliance on usage data from Web log software. Internet audience data has helped NLM better understand the relative usage of NLM and NIH websites in the intersection of the health information and US government information market sectors, which is the primary market intersector for NLM and NIH. However important, Web usage is only one dimension of a complete Web evaluation framework, and other primary research methods, such as online user surveys, usability tests, and focus groups, are also important for comprehensive evaluation that includes qualitative elements, such as user satisfaction and user friendliness, as well as quantitative indicators of website usage.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/jmir.7.3.e31

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wood, F. B., Benson, D., LaCroix, E.-M., Siegel, E. R., & Fariss, S.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Wood, Fred B
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2005-07-01
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
e31
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095422460
Cited by
36
References
5
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Michigan State University
  • College of Engineering, Michigan State University
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
market share, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, MedlinePlus, PubMed, web log data, WebMD, website evaluation
MeSH terms
Humans, Information Services, Marketing of Health Services, National Library of Medicine (U.S.), Neoplasms, Online Systems, United States, Reproducibility of Results, MEDLINE, Internet, PubMed

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