Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Medical Librarianship and Information Sciences, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author) Email: hosseinghalavand@gmail.com
2 Associate Professor, Information Technology, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Lecturer, Medical Librarianship and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: Many criteria are involved in the assessment of websites. The importance of these criteria
differs depending on their various subject areas. The purpose of this study was to identify the importance
of assessment criteria of health websites based on the opinions of hospital librarians.
Methods: This descriptive study was conducted in 2011. After face and content validity of the researcher
constructed questionnaire (based on the likert scale) were evaluated, its reliability was determined by
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (0.98). The questionnaire was distributed between all librarians of 30
hospital libraries affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Shahid Beheshti University.
53 questionnaires were collected. Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics (mean, median,
mode, and standard deviation) in SPSS for Windows (version 19).
Results: Of the information quality criteria, accuracy had of the highest degree of importance (4.56), and
price and response time had the lowest degree of importance (2.52). Moreover, in the external indicators
group author credentials had the highest mean (4.73), and accessibility and advertising policy had the
lowest mean of importance (2.20).
Conclusion: Based on librarian’s opinions, the evaluation criteria of websites’ content information quality
are of greater importance than their external indicators.
Keywords
information seeking: a survey of local public health professionals in the northwest. J Public Health Manag
Pract 2009; 15(1): 67-9.
2. Wang Y, Liu Z. Automatic detecting indicators for quality of health information on the Web. Int J Med Inform
2007; 76(8): 575-82.
3. Naumann F, Rolker C. Assessment Methods for Information Quality Criteria. 5th ed. New York, NY: Professoren
des Inst. für Informatik; 2000.
4. Katerattanakul P, Siau K. Measuring information quality of web sites: development of an instrument. Proceedings
of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems; 1999 Dec13-15; Charlotte, NC; 1999. 2013.
5. 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): 2691-700.
6. Knight SA, Burn J. Developing a Framework for Assessing Information Quality on the World Wide Web.
Informing Science Journal 2005; 8: 159-72.
7. Kargar MJ, Ramli AR, Ibrahim H, Azimzadeh F. Formulating Priority Coefficients for Information Quality
Criteria on the Blog. Advances in Computer Science and Engineering 2009; 6: 396-403.
8. Stvilia B, Mon L, Yi YJ. A model for online consumer health information quality. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 2009; 60(9): 1781-91.
9. Hayati Z, Dehghan L. A Survey of Acquaintance and Application of Web Information Quality Criteria: A Case
Study of Post-Graduate Students in Shiraz University. Journal of Information Processing and Management 2012;
27(4): 1011-31.
10. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical
information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997; 277(15):
1244-5.
11.HONcode: Principles - Quality and trustworthy health information 2011 [cited 2011 Apr 11]; Available from:
URL: www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html. 2013.
12.World Health Organization. WHO Recommended Strategies for the Prevention and Control of Communicable
Diseases. Geveva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Department of Communicable Disease Control,
Prevention and Eradication; 2001.
13.DISCERN. The Discern Instrument. Quality criteria for consumer health information [Online]. 1997; Available
from: URL: http://www.discern.org.uk/discern_instrument.php/
14.Natinal library of medicine. Quality guide lines for health information in multiple languages [Online]. 2012;
Available from: URL: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/languages/criteria.html/
15.Anderson J, McKemmish S, Manaszewicz R. Qualty criteria models used to evaluate health websites.
Proceedings of the 10th Asia Pacific Special, Health and Law Librarians' Conference; 2003 Aug 24-27; Adelaide,
South Australia; 2003.
)