A Comparison of Websites from Spanish, American and British Hospitals

G. Llinás; D. Rodríguez-Iñesta; J. J. Mira; S. Lorenzo; C. Aibar

doi:10.3414/ME0474

Methods of Information in Medicine, Table of Contents

Methods Inf Med 2008; 47(02): 124-130
DOI: 10.3414/ME0474

Original Article

Schattauer GmbH

A Comparison of Websites from Spanish, American and British Hospitals

G. Llinás

¹Departamentode Psicología de la Salud, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), Spain

,

D. Rodríguez-Iñesta

¹Departamentode Psicología de la Salud, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), Spain

,

J. J. Mira

¹Departamentode Psicología de la Salud, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), Spain

,

S. Lorenzo

²Unidad de Calidad, Fundación Hospital Alcorcón, Alcorcón (Madrid), Spain

,

C. Aibar

³Serviciode Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Clínico Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, Spain

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Summary

Objective: To evaluate and compare the user-orientation of Spanish, American and British hospital websites.

Methods: A descriptive study of 32 hospital portals (12 Spanish, 10 American and 10 British) was carried out in which the following were analyzed: website readability according to the Flesch Index, websites accessibility using the Web Accessibility Test, and the quality of information provided using the “e-Information Scale of Health Care Centers”.

Results: Fifty percent of the user-oriented information quality attributes are met. Readability indices tend to be below 60 (standard readability), and only 10 of the 32 websites meet the accessibility criteria.

Conclusions: Most portals exhibit accessibility problems that favor computer illiteracy. There is a wide variability in terms of website readability and in terms of useroriented content.

Keywords

Internet - hospital websites - quality - readability - accessibility

Full Text

References

References
1 Eysenbach G. What is e-health?. J Med Internet Res 2001; 3 (02) e20. Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2001/2/e20/
2 Jadad AR, Delamothe T. From electronic gadgets to better health: where is the knowledge?. BMJ 2003; 327: 300-301.
3 Tura A, Quareni L, Longo D, Condoluci C, van Rijn A, Albertini G. Wireless home monitoring and health care activity management through the Internet in patients with chronic diseases. Med Inform Internet Med 2005; 30: 241-253.
4 Markman M, Markman MR, Belland A, Petersen J. Profile of ovarian cancer patients seeking information from a web-based decision support program. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2006; 15: 312-318.
5 Griffiths F, Lindenmeyer A, Powell J, Lowe P, Thorogood M. Why are health care interventions delivered over the Internet? A systematic review of the published literature. J Med Internet Res 2006; 8: e10. Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2006/2/e10/ (last visit June 26, 2006).
6 Podichetty VK, Booher J, Whitfield M, Biscup RS. Assessment of internet use and effects among healthcare professionals: a cross sectional survey. Postgrad Med J 2006; 82: 274-279.
7 Lang JR, Collen A. Evaluating personal health care and health promotion web sites. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 328-333.
8 Schwartz KL, Roe T, Northrup J, Meza J, Seifeldin R, Neale AV. Family medicine patients’ use of the Internet for health information: a MetroNet study. J Am Board Fam Med 2006; 19: 39-45.
9 Richardson R. eHealth for Europe. Stud Health Technol Inform 2003; 96: 151-156.
10 9th HON Survey of Health and Medical Internet Users Winter 2004-2005.. Health On the Net Foundation. Available at: http://www.hon.ch/Survey/Survey2005/res.html (last visit June 12, 2006).
11 eEspaña 2005.. Informe Anual sobre el Desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Información en España. Fundación AUNA, Chapter 13 (La eSalud), page 233. Available at: http://www.fundacionauna.com/areas/25_publicaciones/publi_00.asp (last visit May 18, 2006).
12 Norum J. Evaluation of Norwegian cancer hospitals web sites and explorative survey among cancer patients on their use of the Internet. J Med Internet Res 2001; 3: E30.
13 Zingmond DS, Lim YW, Ettner SL, Carlisle DM. Information superhighway or billboards by the roadside? An analysis of hospital web sites. West J Med 2001; 175: 385-391.
14 Kind T, Wheeler KL, Robinson B, Cabana MD. Do the leading children’s hospitals have quality web sites? A description of children’s hospital web sites. J Med Internet Res 2004; 6: e20.
15 Mira JJ, Llinás G, Vitaller J, Aranaz J, Buil JA. De qué informan los “portales” de hospitales americanos y europeos. Todo Hospital 2004; 208: 421-422.
16 Hospitales Top 20 Edición 2004. Available at: http://www.iasist.com/iasist.html (last visit September 27, 2005).
17 100 Top Hospitals®: National Benchmarks for Success 2003.. Available at: http://www.100tophospitals.com/Winners/national03/benchmarks.asp (last visit September 27, 2005).
18 NHS in England. Available at: http://www.nhs.uk/england/hospitals/default.cmsx (last visit September 27, 2005).
19 Mira JJ, Llinás G, Tomás O, Pérez-Jover V. Quality of websites in Spanish public hospitals. Med Inform Internet Med 2006; 31: 23-44.
20 Fernández Huerta J. Medida sencillas de lecturabilidad. Consigna 1959; 214: 29-32.
21 Simón Lorda P, Barrio Cantalejo IM, Concheiro Carro L. Legibilidad de los formularios escritos de consentimiento informado. Med Clin (Barc) 1997; 107: 524-529.
22 Test de Accesibilidad Web (TAW. exe versión 3). The software can be downloaded for free from the page: http://www.tawdis.net/ (last visit September 27, 2005).
23 Pautas de Accesibilidad al Contenido Web (WCAG). Available at: http://www.w3c.es/Traducciones/es/WAI/intro/wcag (last visit October 25, 2006).
24 Guía Breve de Accesibilidad Web. Can be consulted for free at: http://www.w3c.es/divulgacion/guiasbreves/Accesibilidad (last visit November 14, 2005).
25 Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ (last visit June 30, 2006).
26 Sanz Arrufat A, Clemente Andujar M, Martinez Tormo J. Hospital Pharmacy Departments on the internet. An unfinished business?. Farm Hosp 2004; 28: 286-290.
27 Wang Y, Liu Z. Automatic detecting indicators for quality of health information on the Web. Int J Med Inform 2006. Available at: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/506040/description#description (last visit October 24, 2006). doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.- 2006.04.001.
28 Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Munoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 2001; 285: 2612-2621.
29 Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53: 105-111.
30 Hargrave DR, Hargrave UA, Bouffet E. Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro-oncol 2006; 8: 175-182. Epub March 2, 2006.
31 Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Health literacy and the World Wide Web: comparing the readability of leading incident cancers on the Internet. Med Inform Internet Med 2006; 31: 67-87.
32 O’Grady L. Accessibility compliance rates of consumer-oriented Canadian health care Web sites. Med Inform Internet Med 2005; 30: 287-295.
33 Chiang MF, Starren J. Evaluation of consumer health website accessibility by users with sensory and physical disabilities. Medinfo 2004; 11 Pt (02) 1128-1132.
34 Zeng X, Parmanto B. Web content accessibility of consumer health information web sites for people with disabilities: a cross sectional evaluation. J Med Internet Res 2004; 6: e19.