In This Issue:

• Home
  
  
• Director's CorNER
  
  
• Ill Advised
  
  
• Inside Outreach
  
  
• PubMed Particulars
  
  
• Tres Chic
  
  
• Santa and Digital Delivery
  
  
• Sister Library
  
  
• Announcements
  
  
• Links
  
  

Desde Bethesda viene MedlinePlus en español Consumer WebWatch Studies

On September 9th, 2002, the Spanish language version of MedlinePlus was unveiled. Regular users may have noticed the Spanish language links interspersed within the Health Topics section have been removed. The Spanish language interface includes three sections:

• The Adam.com medical encyclopedia with over 4,000 entries.
• The Interactive Health tutorials section with 63 (and counting) of the learning guides for important health concerns
• Over 500 Health Topics...that's a quick catch-up to the English language version's 560 topics.

The established English language interface has been replicated throughout the Spanish language pages:

The tables of contents

Links to the corresponding health agencies within the Health Topics pages. The Spanish language interface takes the user to a page with brief descriptions of the Institutes and a link to a corresponding Spanish language resource page (if available).

Cross referencing of Encyclopedia entries and Tutorials Interactives within the Temas de Salud.

The small icons that highlight an easy to read and PDF file links.

Not included in the Spanish language version is the drug information database and the dictionary and directories links.

A key enhancement for both versions of MedlinePlus is the link on the top banner that will take users to the other-language equivalent of the Health Topic, Interactive Tutorial or Medical Encyclopedia page (if available).

Librarians and information providers with a Spanish speaking population will find the Spanish language version a useful resource. Those of you who would like promotional materials regarding MedlinePlus please contact me. A limited number of bookmarks and post cards are available.

New studies from Consumer WebWatch

Hot off the pdf utility are two reports from the Consumer WebWatch. Both studies speak to concerns librarians share for the critical thinking needed when looking for health information on the Web.

Funded through the Pew Trust and other philanthropies, Consumer Webwatch is an offshoot of the Consumers Union, the folks who publish Consumer Reports.

Webwatch was established to bring the same principles of advocacy, strong guidelines and consumer awareness on the Web. Consumer Webwatch sponsors research, monitors web trends and practices and hopes to develop guidelines to rate different types of websites.

Unlike other evaluations and guidelines initiatives, ConsumerWebwatch is focused on credibility. Steering clear from the slippery pig known as 'quality', ConsumerWebwatch has staked credibility as the key component to rate websites.

ConsumerWebwatch guidelines list the following components in ensuring credibility:

The guidelines were developed through a previous study they sponsored A Matter of Trust: What users want from websites. The two recent studies differ from A Matter of Trust in that actual websites were examined by users and a panel of experts.

For the consumer study, close to 6,700 consumers were asked to evaluate 2 websites from one subject area. Although individuals evaluated only 2 websites, 10 websites from 10 topic areas were used. The results of the study provide data on what people look for in assessing credibility of websites in general as well as data on credibility factors within different subject areas.

Credibility factors for websites overall
Consumers assess credibility in the visual appearance design of the website (including layout, typography, white space, images, color schemes, etc), how the website is organized (how well or poorly the information fit together, as well as how hard it was to navigate the site to find things of interest), and what the authors call information focus (comprehensiveness," clarity, potential bias, usefulness, and organization)

For the complete rankings of factors regarding credibility see the http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/report3_credibilityresearch/stanfordPTL_part1.htm overall analysis

Credibility factors for health websites
When evaluating the credibility of health sites, the greatest factor in credibility pointed to information focus and information usefulness. "There [were] a substantial number of comments saying that health Web sites won credibility by providing information that people found to be useful and to have a good focus." Subjects also commented more often about advertising on health Web sites. Here comments were both positive and negative regarding credibility.

Among the hhealth sitesused to assess credibility the top 3 were ranked as MayoClinic, InteliHealth, and the NIH page. For complete rankings see the Credibility Results for Health Websites

Experts vs. Online Consumers: A comparative credibility study of health and finance web sites.
The expert portion of the study recruited academics and practitioners known in their fields. The experts reviewed a series of websites, ranking them in paired groups and separately. Experts also entered comments regarding the credibility of the sites they ranked.

The study revealed that health experts and finance experts have varying perceptions of credibility.
For health experts, "a credible site must provide information from "good" sources that are specifically cited. Good, credible, knowledgeable sources are generally reputable health institutions that have earned their reputations through reliable research bolstered by the goal of advancing medical knowledge. "

For finance experts "a site must provide information from multiple points of view that a consumer can balance to make a wise investment decision. If a financial site presents only one perspective, it can increase its credibility by being up-front about its motive and target audience."

In comparison to the expert comments on the websites, consumer comments were concerned more with the look and design of health sites. "Health-site design was much more influential for consumers than for experts when judging credibility." According to the 'people' study, consumers do not question the information source but instead, "they make a personal judgment on how accurate they believe the information."

The NIH site was rated most credible by the experts. See the table on how experts and consumers rated health websites.

More on comparing the two studies...

While experts are impressed with the established credibility of the NIH, consumers offered no commentary regarding the reputation of the NIH. The report contends differences in assessing credibility ought to be "addressed in order to help consumers accurately assess the validity of online health information."

In contrast to consumers, experts were not concerned with the amount of information available. "Most experts were more concerned with evaluating the sources of that information rather than the amount of information available. Consumers however, feel more comfortable when there was a lot of information present on multiple health topics."