According to results of my 2012 study, most people are satisfied with their skills using the Internet (Hruska, 2012). Almost everyone (98%) today looks for health or medical information online. Many people agree that what they find online has improved their health. This is exciting news for web developers, doctors, and others in the health care and technology industries. But, what factors make a health related website truly useful? This study revealed five major areas.
Advertising
Most people agreed that their health-related website should not have any advertisements. The more advertising on a website, the less likely they will use the website. Even on websites like the Mayo Clinic and Web MD, advertising gets in the way of the real information. One person said, “The problem I encounter is separating the actual information, from all the advertisements for various things. I stopped using search engines like Google” (Hruska, 2012, p. 91). People are quick to avoid websites that look like a ‘sales ad’- websites that are out for monetary gain- selling a product or service.
Source
Many people agree that a health-related website should list their sources and these sources should be peer-reviewed and authoritative as opposed to content with bogus, unsupported claims, like what might be found on a blog, news story, or source like Wikipedia. People check the About page of the website- they want to see the sponsor or author of the website- their qualifications and credentials. Ideally, a health-related website should be linked to a professional medical organization, like NIH, Mayo Clinic, Web MD, PubMed, ACS, and Kaiser Permanente. Websites with domain extensions like .org, .edu, and .gov were more trusted than websites with extensions like .com, .net, or .biz. People trust health-related websites that are highly publicized and recommended by trusted sources like a local library, doctor, or “Government web sites and ones from universities or hospitals with strong research arms” (p. 99). Some people avoid health related websites that do not have the HONCode symbol.
Respondents to the survey said they preferred website content to be detailed, written by doctors using technical terms, while others wanted content in non-technical, layperson’s terms. One person said, “I would appreciate having information available in both every day terms and in medical terms. I often need to look things up, then have to translate them into everyday language for colleague, e.g. a Dengue threat” (p. 88). People noted that some websites are too biased and do not give a complete picture; one person said some websites “… are rather sketchy and don’t elaborate to be very beneficial” (p. 89). People might check scientific journals to find out if an issue is controversial when assessing website content. Health-related website content should be accurate and thorough rather than content that makes grandiose or broad claims- offering magic solutions. Content should not cause needless worry. One person answered, “With a lot of the symptoms and diagnosis information, it is possible to over diagnose yourself with many illnesses…” (p. 92). The content on a health-related website should be scholarly and peer-reviewed as opposed to content that “reeks of opinion and poor writing” (p. 98).
Verifiability
Today, the Internet can be considered an important source, but perhaps not a 100% trusted source. People might use a homegrown solution to verify the health related information they find online. For instance, they might look for ‘overlapping research’; if information is found on multiple (unassociated) websites, then it is considered trustworthy. One person said that they based the credibility of a health-related website “…on my overall intelligence, and the number of times I see the information repeated across multiple, reputable sites” (p. 97). Other respondents said they might also confirm content with a trusted informed friend, a specialist, a doctor, or another reputable source. One person answered, “I normally read Wikipedia and have one idea already about the illness, then go to the books and also check and then I can have one idea if the information on the website is useful or not” (p. 96).
In terms of the design, professionalism, personalization, and usability determined the utility of health related websites. Websites can too ‘technically presented’ and should be more user friendly, respondents answered. One person said, “Frankly, if the web site looked professional (well designed), I might not even have looked for further info regarding the credibility of the web site” (p. 100). People want quality graphics and interactive content- content that motivates them to find answers. Use of pictures, one person explained, makes information easier to retain. One person suggested an interactive feature that matched illnesses to symptoms, and a functionality that allowed health professionals to answer specific questions from visitors to the website. Features like these “…could be tailored to my responses about what’s wrong and give more specific information after answering questions” (p. 89).
Websites should be easy to search, using keywords that are relevant. One person said, “Lots of sites use teasers on information to get you in there, then you have to dig for more info or go to additional sites” (p. 90). Websites like the National Library of Medicine and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were suggested as models for the ideal health related website. “Logical presentation will give a extra mile to the health-related information” one person answered (p. 92) . Other features that add to the usability and credibility include a contact button and an easy to read, large-size font and layout. Someone wrote “I find clean, uncluttered sites most appealing and easy to navigate” (p. 92) .
People liked their health-related website to provide links and other resources that enable them to research further. One person suggested use of just “HTML 4 or 5 without advertising, pop-ups, or flash” (p. 92 ). In addition, a health-related website should have a date that is current and be up-to-date with fresh content. Also, the website should be regularly monitored.
Use of Meta Tags is important for health-related websites. Eighty percent of survey participants found their health websites through an Internet search engine like Google or Yahoo! Other sources for finding these websites include from a news article (35%); from an advertisement (20%); from a doctor’s office (22%); and, from a friend or relative (32%). Use of a short, easy-to-remember URL is advised. Over 20% of people reported having provided fake information instead of revealing their own name or personal information. Thirty percent of people are at least somewhat or very concerned about other people finding out about the health websites they have gone to, indicating that security and privacy is an important concern.
Conclusion
Clearly, not all health related websites are created equal, as this survey exposed. Different factors make one health website better than another. People expect more today online. They know what they want from a health-related website, and they are quick to search elsewhere if they do not get it.
Hruska, N. (2012). Effect of personality on the use and perceived utility of web-based health resources.
-Dr. Natalie Hruska received her Ph.D. from Walden University in 2012.
