Adecuación a los códigos de conducta para información biomédica en internet de sitios web útiles para el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objetivos: Evaluar la adecuación de los sitios web destinados a proporcionar información para la realización de seguimiento farmacoterapéutico a 4 códigos de conducta. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo del cumplimiento de los criterios de calidad de 19 sitios web seleccionados por ser los de mayor utilización por los farmacéuticos en un estudio previo. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo y se estimó el coeficiente kappa para valorar la concordancia entre evaluadores (criterios de Fleiss). Resultados y conclusiones: Fisterra fue la página mejor valorada en los 4 códigos, y la fuente de acceso a guías clínicas mejor calificada. La Cochrane Library y Pubmed las mejor valoradas en revisiones y fuentes secundarias. JAMA y British Medical Journal fueron las revistas mejor calificadas seguidas de Atención Primaria y Medicina Clínica. Entre los vademécums, el BOT y el Martindale obtuvieron las mejores calificaciones y el Boletín Terapéutico Andaluz y el Butlletí Groc recibieron altas calificaciones de entre los boletines de medicamentos. La Organización Mundial de la Salud fue la agencia mejor calificada. Los sitios con menor calificación fueron Pharmaceutical Care, Seguimiento Farmacoterapéutico y el Vademécum Internacional España MediMedia-Medicom. La concordancia entre evaluadores fue aceptable para los 4 códigos. Conclusiones: La calidad de los sitios web que utilizan los farmacéuticos es muy variable, aunque la mayoría superan los 60 puntos (sobre 100) en los 4 códigos de conducta usados en la evaluación.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review.

Mary M Deering, Roger Maxfield, Hannah P. Kim … (1999)

To review published criteria for specifically evaluating health related information on the world wide web, and to identify areas of consensus. Search of world wide web sites and peer reviewed medical journals for explicit criteria for evaluating health related information on the web, using Medline and Lexis-Nexis databases, and the following internet search engines: Yahoo!, Excite, Altavista, Webcrawler, HotBot, Infoseek, Magellan Internet Guide, and Lycos. Criteria were extracted and grouped into categories. 29 published rating tools and journal articles were identified that had explicit criteria for assessing health related web sites. Of the 165 criteria extracted from these tools and articles, 132 (80%) were grouped under one of 12 specific categories and 33 (20%) were grouped as miscellaneous because they lacked specificity or were unique. The most frequently cited criteria were those dealing with content, design and aesthetics of site, disclosure of authors, sponsors, or developers, currency of information (includes frequency of update, freshness, maintenance of site), authority of source, ease of use, and accessibility and availability. Results suggest that many authors agree on key criteria for evaluating health related web sites, and that efforts to develop consensus criteria may be helpful. The next step is to identify and assess a clear, simple set of consensus criteria that the general public can understand and use.

0 comments Cited 72 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination.

Anna Gagliardi, Alejandro Jadad (2002)

This study updates work published in 1998, which found that of 47 rating instruments appearing on websites offering health information, 14 described how they were developed, five provided instructions for use, and none reported the interobserver reliability and construct validity of the measurements. All rating instrument sites noted in the original study were visited to ascertain whether they were still operating. New rating instruments were identified by duplicating and enhancing the comprehensive search of the internet and the medical and information science literature used in the previous study. Eligible instruments were evaluated as in the original study. 98 instruments used to assess the quality of websites in the past five years were identified. Many of the rating instruments identified in the original study were no longer available. Of 51 newly identified rating instruments, only five provided some information by which they could be evaluated. As with the six sites identified in the original study that remained available, none of these five instruments seemed to have been validated. Many incompletely developed rating instruments continue to appear on websites providing health information, even when the organisations that gave rise to those instruments no longer exist. Many researchers, organisations, and website developers are exploring alternative ways of helping people to find and use high quality information available on the internet. Whether they are needed or sustainable and whether they make a difference remain to be shown.

0 comments Cited 66 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel?

A Jadad, Juan A Gagliardi (1998)

The rapid growth of the Internet has triggered an information revolution of unprecedented magnitude. Despite its obvious benefits, the increase in the availability of information could also result in many potentially harmful effects on both consumers and health professionals who do not use it appropriately. To identify instruments used to rate Web sites providing health information on the Internet, rate criteria used by them, establish the degree of validation of the instruments, and provide future directions for research in this area. MEDLINE (1966-1997), CINAHL (1982-1997), HEALTH (1975-1997), Information Science Abstracts (1966 to September 1995), Library and Information Science Abstracts (1969-1995), and Library Literature (1984-1996); the search engines Lycos, Excite, Open Text, Yahoo, HotBot, Infoseek, and Magellan; Internet discussion lists; meeting proceedings; multiple Web pages; and reference lists. INSTRUMENT SELECTION: Instruments used at least once to rate the quality of Web sites providing health information with their rating criteria available on the Internet. The name of the developing organization, Internet address, rating criteria, information on the development of the instrument, number and background of people generating the assessments, and data on the validity and reliability of the measurements. A total of 47 rating instruments were identified. Fourteen provided a description of the criteria used to produce the ratings, and 5 of these provided instructions for their use. None of the instruments identified provided information on the interobserver reliability and construct validity of the measurements. Many incompletely developed instruments to evaluate health information exist on the Internet. It is unclear, however, whether they should exist in the first place, whether they measure what they claim to measure, or whether they lead to more good than harm.

0 comments Cited 50 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

SciELO PublicHealth ID:: S0213-91112007000300005

License:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health

Keywords: Quality indicators,Internet,Health,Ethic codes,Pharmaceutical care,Indicadores de calidad,Salud,Códigos éticos,Atención farmacéutica

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health

Keywords: Quality indicators, Internet, Health, Ethic codes, Pharmaceutical care, Indicadores de calidad, Salud, Códigos éticos, Atención farmacéutica

Adecuación a los códigos de conducta para información biomédica en internet de sitios web útiles para el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

SciELO Public Health

Most cited references 24

Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review.

Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination.

Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel?

Author and article information

Journal

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 355

Most referenced authors 140