Gauging the Reliability of Online Health Information in the Turkish Context

  • Edibe Betül KarbayEmail author
  • Hashim Iqbal ChunpirEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9735)


It is hard to gauge the reliability of health information that is provided on the internet as there are plethora of medical firms and other organizations promoting their massive marketing campaigns to sell their products and services. However, an initiative; Health On the Net (HON) foundation claims that it is possible to observe the credibility and trustworthiness of health information on the websites internationally by following HON-code principles. Keeping with the principles set by the HON foundation, we analyzed the credibility of Turkish health websites and portals related to health information seeking behavior from the point of view information seeker’s benefit. We selected and analyzed 56 websites within three categories which are “psychology”, “aesthetics and beauty” and “motherhood, baby and children”. We then evaluated their credibility of health information as according HON principles. We found out that most of the selected websites do conform to the basic principles set by the HON foundation, in Turkey. However, this information of conformance to the standards has not been listed explicitly, as opposed to the health portals in the US. Furthermore, we observed that accessibility of health information for patients and other information seekers is another topic that is needed to be dealt with separately.


Participatory health decision making Patient-web portal interaction Health information seeking behavior Reliability of online health information Seeking health advice on the web 


  1. 1.
    Internet World Stats: World Internet Users and 2015 Population Stats, 30 November 2015. Accessed 23 Feb 2016
  2. 2.
    HON: About HON, 14 October 2015. Accessed 14 Feb 2016
  3. 3.
    Johnson, J.D., Case, D.O.: Health Information Seeking. Peter Lang Publishing, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hendrick, P.A., Ahmed, O.H., Bankier, S.S., Chan, T.J., Crawford, S.A., Ryder, C.R., Welsh, L.J., Schneiders, A.G.: Acute low back pain information online: an evaluation of quality, content accuracy and readability of related websites. Manual Ther. 17(4), 318–324 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nagappa, A.N., Sam, K.G., Zarrin, F., Saurabh, H., Partha, G., Pathak, K.: Evaluation of web sites for quality and contents of asthma patient education. J Young Pharm. 1(3), 278–283 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    TUIK: Use of Informatics by Households, 18 August 2015. Accessed 1 Feb 2016
  7. 7.
    Çalışkan, K.: Mobil uygulamaların kullanım oranları 2013 yılında yüzde 115 arttı, 14 January 2014. Accessed 20 May 2015
  8. 8.
    Bakanlığı, T.C.S.: Sağlık istatistikleri yıllığı. Sentez Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık, Ankara (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anker, A.E., Reinhart, A.M., Freeley, T.H.: Health information seeking: a review of measures and methods. Patient Educ. Couns. 82(2011), 346–354 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boyer, C., Baujard, V., Scherrer, J.R., Appel, R.D.: The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health-related web sites: Three years on, 19 September 1999. Accessed 13 Feb 2016
  11. 11.
    HON: Health website evaluation result (2016). Accessed 11 Feb 2016Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    NIH: Online health information: Can you trust it?, December 2014. Accessed 4 Feb 2016
  13. 13.
    Ministry of Health: Number of medical institutions, total hospital beds and number of hospital beds per 1000 population, 1967–2014, 15 December 2015.;jsessionid=bZVyWNlVldKvWp2xMcNpbx942n4GsSN2y6rbV6FsRpvhLt2txZnT!519585183. Accessed 24 Feb 2016
  14. 14.
    StatCounter: Top 5 search enginees in Turkey from Feb 2015 to Jan 2016 (2016). Accessed 4 Feb 2016
  15. 15.
    HON: The HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites (HONcode), 19 September 2013. Accessed 26 Mar 2016
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, J.: Medical usability: how to kill patients through bad design, 11 April 2005. Accessed 13 Feb 2016
  17. 17.
    Khresmoi: Requirements for general public health serach, ICT Theme of the 7th Framework Programme (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eighmey, J., McCord, L.: Adding value in the information age: uses and gratifications of sites on the world wide web. J. Bus. Res. 41, 187–194 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    WCAG: How to Meet WCAG 2.0, 16 September 2014. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
  20. 20.
    TED: Director, doctors make mistakes. Can we talk about that?. [Film]. TED (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dotmund: Almanya’da geçen yıl 77 kişi doktor hatasından hayatını kaybetti, 23 June 2014. Accessed 28 Mar 2016
  22. 22.
    Welch, G., Schwartz, L.M., Woloshin, S.: Sağlık adına hasta etmek. İNSEV, Istanbul (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deppe, H.-U.: Sağlık hizmetlerinin doğası: Metalaştırmaya karşı dayanışma. In: Panitch, L., Leys, C. (eds.) Kapitalizmde Sağlık Sağlıksızlık Semptomları, pp. 43–53. Yordam Kitap, İstanbul (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Irwin, S.O.: A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organization, Geneva (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chunpir, H.I.: Enchancing user support in federated e-science, University of Hamburg (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chunpir, H.I., Ludwig, T., Badewi, A.: A snap-shot of user support services in Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF): a use case of climate cyber-infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the 5th Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE) Conference, Krakow, Poland (2014a)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chunpir, H.I., Ludwig, T., Badewi, A.A.: Using soft systems methotology (SSM) in understanding current user-support scenario in the climate science domain of cyber-infrastructures. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) Design, User Experience, and Usability. LNCS, vol. 8519, pp. 495–506. Springer, Cham (2014b). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07635-5_48 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chunpir, H.I., Ludwig, T., Badewi, A.A.: User support in the complex environment. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) Design, User Experience, and Usability. LNCS, vol. 8520, pp. 392–402. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07638-6_38 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chunpir, H., Moll, A.: Analysis of marine ecosystems: usability, visualisation and community collaboration challenges. Procedia Manuf. 3, 3262–3265 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of CommunicationGalatasaray UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversidade Federal de São CarlosSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Faculty of InformaticsUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  4. 4.German Climate Computing Centre (DKRZ)HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations