Health care providers on the World Wide Web: quality of presentations of surgical departments in Germany.
Clicks: 168
ID: 276372
2001
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
30.0
/100
168 views
46 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #2 of 2 articles by views in Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
It is becoming increasingly common for health care providers to present information on the World Wide Web (WWW). Patients, as well as health care professionals, do not really know what they can expect today. Many quality criteria are proposed for the assessment of medical Internet sites focusing mainly on structure and content management. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of presentations by health care providers on the WWW and to detect strengths and weaknesses with regard to potential target groups, patients, colleagues, and students. A sample of 171 presentations was randomly selected in March 2000 from a collection of 469 surgical departments in Germany. Medical doctors undergoing a full-time training in medical informatics rated the presentations. A previously evaluated questionnaire was used to assess the presentations with regard to 12 criteria about content and technical features. For each criterion the categories 'very good', 'sufficient', and 'insufficient' could be used. Twenty medical doctors assessed 168 presentations with one to seven valuations per presentation. Three presentations could not be accessed at the time of evaluation. Sixty-eight per cent of the median values of each criterion were rated as insufficient. The only criteria rated sufficient or better in at least 50% were: employees/map, survey of offered medical services, navigation, and layout. University hospitals and heart centres achieved significantly better results than regional hospitals. In conclusion, the quality of provider information on the W WW is unsatisfactory. Most surgical departments do not provide information that could help patients to choose their physicians. The criteria set developed here could be a useful tool for a target-group-oriented self-assessment of provider presentations on the World Wide Web.
| Reference Key |
stausberg2001healthmedical
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Stausberg, J;Fuchs, J;Hüsing, J;Hirche, H; |
| Journal | Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine |
| Year | 2001 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | URL not found |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.