Advertisement

Evaluation of the Quality of Health Information on the Internet: An Analysis of Brazillian Initiatives

  • André Pereira Neto
  • Rodolfo Paolucci
Chapter

Abstract

Health information is produced on the Internet without evaluating its quality. Incomplete, contradictory, incorrect, or incomprehensible information can be harmful to health. But quality information can bring benefits to both citizens and health managers. This chapter analyzes Brazilian initiatives to evaluate the quality of health information based on the three systematic reviews on the subject. We found that the Brazilian academic production in this field does not follow international trends. Two Brazilian institutional initiatives are in place, namely, the “Regional Medical Council of São Paulo” and the “Internet, Health, and Society Laboratory” (LaISS) of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. LaISS made two evaluations that followed international literature and introduced innovative methods. We conclude that the pre-Internet communication culture seems to predominate among Brazilian health officials. Information and communication technologies are of secondary importance to public health managers and researchers.

Keywords

Health evaluation Consumer health information Internet Social participation Standards 

References

  1. Albarrak, Ahmed, Rafiuddin Mohammed, Nasriah Zakaria, Lujain Alyousef, Noura Almefgai, Hend Alqahtani, Hanan Alamer, and Ahlam Alsulaiman. 2016. The impact of obesity related websites on decision making among students in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal 24: 605–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbosa, Andréa Lima, and Elisabeth Nogueira Martins. 2007. Evaluation of Internet websites about floaters and light flashes in patient education. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 70: 839–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastos, Bárbara, Deborah Ferrari, Bárbara Guimarães Bastos, and Deborah Viviane Ferrari. 2014. Babies’ portal website hearing aid section: Assessment by audiologists. International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology 18: 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brasil. 2017. Plano nacional pelo fim da tuberculose. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Vigilância das Doenças Transmissíveis. http://portalarquivos.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2017/fevereiro/24/Plano-Nacional-Tuberculose.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2018.
  5. Carlini, Beatriz Helena, Telmo Mota Ronzani, Leonardo Fernandes Martins, Henrique Pinto Gomide, and Isabel Cristina Weiss de Souza. 2012. Demand for and availability of online support to stop smoking. Revista de Saúde Pública 46: 1066–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnock, Deborah, and Sasha Shepperd. 2004. Learning to DISCERN online: Applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Education Research 19: 440–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaves, Juliana Nogueira, Ana Lívia Libardi, Raquel Sampaio Agostinho-Pesse, Marina Morettin, and Kátia de Freitas Alvarenga. 2015. Telessaúde: avaliação de websites sobre triagem auditiva neonatal na Língua Portuguesa. CoDAS 27: 526–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng, Christina, and Matthew Dunn. 2015. Health literacy and the Internet: A study on the readability of Australian online health information. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health 39: 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chirinos, Narda Estela Calsin, Betina Hörner Schlindwein Meirelles, and Andréa Barbará Silva Bousfield. 2017. Relationship between the social representations of health professionals and people with tuberculosis and treatment abandonment. Texto Contexto – Enfermagem 26: 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. CFM – Conselho Federal de Medicina. 2010. Código de Ética Médica – Atual. http://www.rcem.cfm.org.br/index.php/cem-atual#cap14. Accessed 28 Jan.
  11. Clavier, Carole, Yan Sénéchal, Stéphane Vibert, and Louise Potvin. 2012. A theory-based model of translation practices in public health participatory research. Sociology of Health & Illness 34: 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CREMESP – Conselho Regional de Medicina do Estado de São Paulo. 2001. Regional Council of Medicine of the State of São Paulo. Resolução CREMESP n° 97, de 20 de fevereiro de 2001. São Paulo. http://www.cremesp.org.br/?siteAcao=PublicacoesConteudoSumario&id=26. Accessed 28 Jan.
  13. Cochrane Library. 2018. About Cochrane reviews http://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-systematic-reviews.html. Accessed 6 June 2017.
  14. Cubas, Marcia Regina, and Paulo Cesar Zimmermann Felchner. 2012. Analysis of information sources about breast self examination available on the Internet. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 17: 965–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Del Giglio, Adriana, Beatrice Abdala, Carolina Ogawa, Daniel Amado, Diego Carter, Fernanda Gomieiro, Fernanda Salama, Marina Shiroma, and Auro del Giglio. 2012. Quality of internet information available to patients on websites in Portuguese. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira 58: 645–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eysenbach, Gunther. 2001. What is e-health? Journal of Medical Internet Research 3: e20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eysenbach, Gunther, John Powell, Oliver Kuss, and Eun-Ryoung Sa. 2002. Empirical Studies Assessing the Quality of Health Information for Consumers on the World Wide Web: A Systematic Review. JAMA 287: 2691–2700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernandes, Tania Maria, and Renato Gama-Rosa Costa. 2013. As comunidades de Manguinhos na história das favelas no Rio de Janeiro. Tempo 19: 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freire, Paulo. 1976. Education, the practice of freedom. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.Google Scholar
  20. Fritsch, Alexander, and Holger Sigmund. 2016. Review platforms in hospitality. In Open tourism, ed. Roman Egger, Igor Gula, and Dominik Walcher, 229–238. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gondim, Ana Paula Soares, and Cláudio Borges Falcão. 2007. Evaluation of Brazilian online pharmacies. Revista de Saúde Pública 41: 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gondim, Ana Paula Soares, Davi Pontes Weyne, and Bruno Sousa Pinto Ferreira. 2012. Quality of health and medication information on Brazilian websites. Einstein (São Paulo) 10: 335–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. HON – Health On the Net Foundation. 2010. HONcode: Guidelines – Operational definition of the HONcode principles. http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Guidelines/guidelines.html. Accessed 8 Oct 2017.
  24. IBGE – Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. 2017. Brasil/São Paulo panorama. https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/sp/panorama. Accessed 12 Jan 2018.
  25. IPP – Instituto Pereira Passos. 2013. Bairros cariocas. http://pcrj.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=096ae1e5497145838ca64191be66f3e3. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  26. Lagan, Briege, Marlene Sinclair, and W. George Kernohan. 2011. What is the impact of the internet on decision-making in pregnancy? A global study. Birth-Issues In Perinatal Care 38: 336–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, Helena, and Natalie Pang. 2017. Information scent – Credibility and gaze interactions: An eye-tracking analysis in information behaviour. Information Research 22: 20–23.Google Scholar
  28. Leite, Filipa, and André Correia. 2011. Quality evaluation of websites with information on childhood dental caries in Portuguese language. Revista Odonto Ciência 26: 116–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lévy, Pierre. 2001. Cyberculture. 1st ed. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lima, Carla Moura. 2010. Vozes de quem sofre: discutindo a Saúde Ambiental na Bacia do Canal do Cunha. In Território, participação popular e saúde: Manguinhos em debate, orgs. Carla Moura Lima and Leonardo Brasil Bueno, 63–80. Rio de Janeiro: ENSP/Fiocruz.Google Scholar
  31. Lins, Thaís Honório, and Heimar de Fátima Marin. 2012. Evaluation of a website on nursing care in the post anesthesia recovery room. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem 25: 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Misse, Michel. 2011. Crime organizado e crime comum no Rio de Janeiro: diferenças e afinidades. Revista de Sociologia e Política 19: 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Monteiro, Gisele da Silva Gomes, Maíra Macário de Assis, Maria Alvim Leite, Larissa Loures Mendes, Gisele da Silva Gomes Monteiro, Maíra Macário de Assis, Maria Alvim Leite, and Larissa Loures Mendes. 2016. Assessing the nutritional information for children younger than two years old available on popular websites. Revista Paulista de Pediatria 34: 287–292.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Moreno, Juan, José Manuel Morales Del Castillo, Carlos Porcel, and Enrique Herrera-Viedma. 2010. A quality evaluation methodology for health-related websites based on a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach. Soft Computing 14: 887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mori, Satomi, Iveth Yamaguchi Whitaker, Heimar de Fátima Marin, Satomi Mori, Iveth Yamaguchi Whitaker, and Heimar de Fátima Marin. 2013. Evaluation of an educational website on First Aid. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 47: 950–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Neil, Cathy. 2016. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  37. Paolucci, Rodolfo. 2015. Métodos para avaliação da qualidade de informação em sites de saúde: revisão sistemática (2001–2014). Master’s thesis, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  38. Paolucci, Rodolfo, André Pereira Neto, and Rafaela Luzia. 2017. Information quality assessment on tuberculosis sites: Analysis of a participatory experience. Saúde em Debate 41: 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pariser, Eli. 2011. The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  40. Park, Hayoung, Sang-Il Lee, Hee Hwang, Yoon Kim, Eun-Young Heo, Jeong-Whun Kim, and Kyooseob Ha. 2015. Can a health information exchange save healthcare costs? Evidence from a pilot program in South Korea. International Journal of Medical Informatics 84: 658–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pereira Neto, André, and Rodolfo Paolucci. 2014. Quality of information on dengue sites: Analysis of a innovative experience. Rio de Janeiro: FIOCRUZ/ENSP.Google Scholar
  42. Pereira Neto, André, Rafaela Luzia, Rodolfo Paolucci, Leticia Barbosa, and Otávio Porto. 2016. Quality of information on tuberculosis sites: Analysis of second innovative experience. Rio de Janeiro: FIOCRUZ/ENSP.Google Scholar
  43. Pereira Neto, André de Faria, Rodolfo Paolucci, Regina Paiva Daumas, and Rogério Valls de Souza. 2017. Participatory evaluation of the quality of health information on the internet: The case of dengue sites. Ciência e Saúde Coletiva 22: 1955–1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pithon, Matheus Melo, Elinailton Silva dos Santos, Matheus Melo Pithon, and Elinailton Silva dos Santos. 2014. Information available on the internet about pain after orthognathic surgery: A careful review. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 19: 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Powell, John, Nadia Inglis, Jennifer Ronnie, and Shirley Large. 2011. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13: e20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos, Vagner, Marcelle Maria Portal, Maristela Ferigolo, Denise Conceição Mesquita Dantas, Helena Maria Tannhauser Barros, and Carolina Sturm Trindade. 2010. Sites on drugs of abuse: Resources for assessment. Trabalho, Educação e Saúde 8: 575–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scheffer, Mário, Aureliano Biancarelli, and Alex Cassenote. 2011. Demografia médica no Brasil: dados gerais e descrições de desigualdades. São Paulo: Conselho Regional de Medicina do Estado de São Paulo e Conselho Federal de Medicina.Google Scholar
  48. Silva, Leonardo Victor España Rueda, João Ferreira De Mello Jr., and Olavo Mion. 2005. Evaluation of Brazilian web site information on allergic rhinitis. Revista Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia 71: 590–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Silva, Rosângela Quirino, and Muriel Bauermann Gubert. 2010. The quality of information on maternal breast feeding and complementary feeding on Brazilian internet sites available for health professionals. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno Infantil 10: 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Silveira, Priscilla Carla Menezes, Antônia Eliana dos Santos Costa, and Cleone Cassemiro de Lima. 2012. Stuttering in the web: Quality of information. Revista CEFAC 14: 430–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sousa, Pedro, Helena Fonseca, Pedro Gaspar, and Filomena Gaspar. 2015. Usability of an internet-based platform (Next.Step) for adolescent weight management. Jornal de Pediatria 91: 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Souza, Camila Luciano Narciso, Zélia Profeta Luz, and Ana Rabello. 2008. Analysis of the information on visceral leishmaniasis available through Brazilian portals of the worldwide web – Internet. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical 41: 352–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spoelman, Wouter, Tobias Bonten, Margot Waal, Ton Drenthen, Ivo Smeele, Markus Nielen, and Niels Chavannes. 2016. Effect of an evidence-based website on healthcare usage: An interrupted time-series study. BMJ Open 6: e013166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WHO – World Health Organization. 2018. Neglected tropical diseases. http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/diseases/en/. Accessed 4 Nov 2017.
  55. Xiang, Zheng, Qianzhou Du, Yufeng Ma, and Weiguo Fan. 2017. A comparative analysis of major online review platforms: Implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Management 58: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang, Yan, Yalin Sun, and Bo Xie. 2015. Quality of health information for consumers on the web: A systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology 66: 2071–2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Pereira Neto
    • 1
  • Rodolfo Paolucci
    • 2
  1. 1.National School of Public HealthOswaldo Cruz FoundationRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Support Foundation of the Rio de Janeiro State Technical School (FAETEC-RJ)Oswaldo Cruz FoundationRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations