Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Research

Quality of web-based information at the beginning of a global pandemic: a cross-sectional infodemiology study investigating preventive measures and self care methods of the coronavirus disease 2019

Authors: Jenny Stern, Susanne Georgsson, Tommy Carlsson

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

reducing the spread and impact epidemics and pandemics requires that members of the general population change their behaviors according to the recommendations, restrictions and laws provided by leading authorities. When a new epidemic or pandemic emerges, people are faced with the challenge of sorting through a great volume of varied information. Therefore, the dissemination of high-quality web-based information is essential during this time period. The overarching aim was to investigate the quality of web-based information about preventive measures and self care methods at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

in May 2020, consumer-oriented websites written in Swedish were identified via systematic searches in Google (n = 76). Websites were assessed with inductive content analysis, the JAMA benchmarks, the QUEST tool and the DISCERN instrument.

Results

seven categories and 33 subcategories were identified concerning preventive measures (md = 6.0 subcategories), with few specifying a method for washing hands (n = 4), when to sanitize the hands (n = 4), and a method for sanitizing the hands (n = 1). Eight categories and 30 subcategories were identified concerning self care methods (md = 3.0 subcategories), with few referring to the national number for telephone-based counseling (n = 20) and an online symptom assessment tool (n = 16). Overall, the median total quality scores were low (JAMA = 0/4, QUEST =13/28, DISCERN = 29/80).

Conclusions

at the beginning of the pandemic, substantial quality deficits of websites about COVID-19 may have counteracted the public recommendations for preventive measures. This illustrates a critical need for standardized and systematic routines on how to achieve dissemination of high-quality web-based information when new epidemics and pandemics emerge.

Available only for authorised users

Xie Y, Wang Z, Liao H, Marley G, Wu D, Tang W. Epidemiologic, clinical, and laboratory findings of the COVID-19 in the current pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):640. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05371-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Arefi MF, Poursadeqiyan M. A review of studies on the COVID-19 epidemic crisis disease with a preventive approach. Work. 2020;66(4):717–29. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-203218.CrossRefPubMed

Rios P, Radhakrishnan A, Williams C, Ramkissoon N, Pham B, Cormack GV, et al. Preventing the transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses in older adults aged 60 years and above living in long-term care: a rapid review. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):218. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01486-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Patiño-Lugo DF, Vélez M, Velásquez Salazar P, Vera-Giraldo CY, Vélez V, Marín IC, et al. Non-pharmaceutical interventions for containment, mitigation and suppression of COVID-19 infection. Colomb Med (Cali). 2020;51:e4266.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Home-care guidelines for adult patients with mild COVID-19. 2020. https://www.racgp.org.au/FSDEDEV/media/documents/Clinical%20Resources/Guidelines/Home-care-guidelines-for-adult-patients-with-mild-COVID-19.pdf.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing symptoms (including at the end of life) in the community. 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng163/resources/covid19-rapid-guideline-managing-symptoms-including-at-the-end-of-life-in-the-community-pdf-66141899069893.

The National Board of Health and Welfare. Triage/flöden och arbetssätt vid covid-19 [Triage/processes and work during covid-19]. 2020. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/dokument-webb/ovrigt/triage-arbetssatt-vardcentral-covid19.pdf.

Anwar A, Malik M, Raees V, Anwar A. Role of mass media and public health communications in the COVID-19 pandemic. Cureus. 2020;12:e10453.PubMedPubMedCentral

Le HT, Nguyen DN, Beydoun AS, Le XTT, Nguyen TT, Pham QT, et al. Demand for health information on COVID-19 among Vietnamese. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124377.

10.

Jo W, Lee J, Park J, Kim Y. Online information exchange and anxiety spread in the early stage of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in South Korea: structural topic model and network analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e19455. https://doi.org/10.2196/19455.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001;16(6):671–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/16.6.671.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E-R. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(20):2691–700. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.20.2691.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Venot A, Burgun A, Quantin C. Medical informatics, e-health: fundamentals and applications. Paris: Springer; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0478-1.CrossRef

14.

Abdel-Wahab N, Rai D, Siddhanamatha H, Dodeja A, Suarez-Almazor ME, Lopez-Olivo MA. A comprehensive scoping review to identify standards for the development of health information resources on the internet. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0218342. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218342.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Beuschel B, Farah MH, Katabi A, et al. Can patients trust online health information? A meta-narrative systematic review addressing the quality of health information on the internet. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(9):1884–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05109-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Farah W, Katabi A, Majzoub A, et al. Readability of online health information: a meta-narrative systematic review. Am J Med Qual. 2018;33(5):487–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860617751639.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Eysenbach G. Infodemiology and infoveillance: framework for an emerging set of public health informatics methods to analyze search, communication and publication behavior on the internet. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(1):e11. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Sun Y, Zhang Y, Gwizdka J, Trace CB. Consumer evaluation of the quality of online health information: systematic literature review of relevant criteria and indicators. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(5):e12522. https://doi.org/10.2196/12522.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Niu L, Luo D, Liu Y, Xiao S. The accessibility, usability, and reliability of Chinese web-based information on HIV/AIDS. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13080834.

20.

Bora K, Das D, Barman B, Borah P. Are internet videos useful sources of information during global public health emergencies? A case study of YouTube videos during the 2015-16 Zika virus pandemic. Pathog Glob Health. 2018;112(6):320–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/20477724.2018.1507784.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Fan KS, Ghani SA, Machairas N, Lenti L, Fan KH, Richardson D, et al. COVID-19 prevention and treatment information on the internet: a systematic analysis and quality assessment. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):e040487. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040487.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Joshi A, Kajal F, Bhuyan SS, Sharma P, Bhatt A, Kumar K, et al. Quality of novel coronavirus related health information over the internet: an evaluation study. ScientificWorldJournal. 2020;2020:1562028.CrossRef

23.

Jayasinghe R, Ranasinghe S, Jayarajah U, Seneviratne S. Quality of online information for the general public on COVID-19. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(12):2594–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.08.001.CrossRefPubMedCentral

24.

Cuan-Baltazar JY, Muñoz-Perez MJ, Robledo-Vega C, Pérez-Zepeda MF, Soto-Vega E. Misinformation of COVID-19 on the internet: Infodemiology study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(2):e18444. https://doi.org/10.2196/18444.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Hernández-García I, Giménez-Júlvez T. Assessment of health information about COVID-19 prevention on the internet: Infodemiological study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(2):e18717. https://doi.org/10.2196/18717.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Rew L, Saenz A, Walker LO. A systematic method for reviewing and analysing health information on consumer-oriented websites. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(9):2218–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13726.CrossRef

27.

The Public Health Agency of Sweden. Our mission. 2018. http://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency-of-sweden/about-us/our-mission/. Accessed 13 Nov 2020.

28.

The Internet Foundation In Sweden. Svenskarna och internet 2018 [Swedes and the internet 2018]. 2018. https://www.iis.se/docs/Svenskarna_och_internet_2018.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2018.

29.

Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):573–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Peterson G, Aslani P, Williams KA. How do consumers search for and appraise information on medicines on the internet? A qualitative study using focus groups. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5:e33.CrossRef

31.

Fiksdal AS, Kumbamu A, Jadhav AS, Cocos C, Nelsen LA, Pathak J, et al. Evaluating the process of online health information searching: a qualitative approach to exploring consumer perspectives. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(9):e224. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3341.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Feufel MA, Stahl SF. What do web-use skill differences imply for online health information searches? J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(3):e87. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2051.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.CrossRef

34.

Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: Caveant lector et viewor--let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Robillard JM, Jun JH, Lai J-A, Feng TL. The QUEST for quality online health information: validation of a short quantitative tool. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0668-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

McCool ME, Wahl J, Schlecht I, Apfelbacher C. Evaluating written patient information for eczema in German: comparing the reliability of two instruments, DISCERN and EQIP. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(10):e0139895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139895.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

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(2):105–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Charnock D. The DISCERN handbook: quality criteria for consumer health information on treatment choices. Discern online 1998. http://www.discern.org.uk/discern.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2016.

39.

Griffiths KM, Christensen H. Website quality indicators for consumers. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(5):e55. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.5.e55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.CrossRef

41.

Helsingen LM, Refsum E, Gjøstein DK, Løberg M, Bretthauer M, Kalager M, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic in Norway and Sweden - threats, trust, and impact on daily life: a comparative survey. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1597. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09615-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Rovetta A, Bhagavathula AS. COVID-19-related web search behaviors and Infodemic attitudes in Italy: Infodemiological study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(2):e19374. https://doi.org/10.2196/19374.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Kummervold PE, Wynn R. Health information accessed on the internet: the development in 5 European countries. Int J Telemed Appl. 2012;2012:297416.PubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Wynn R, Oyeyemi SO, Budrionis A, Marco-Ruiz L, Yigzaw KY, Bellika JG. Electronic health use in a representative sample of 18,497 respondents in Norway (the seventh Tromsø study - part 1): population-based questionnaire study. JMIR Med Inform. 2020;8(3):e13106. https://doi.org/10.2196/13106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

van Dijk JAGM. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics. 2006;34(4-5):221–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004.CrossRef

46.

Okan O, Bollweg TM, Berens E-M, Hurrelmann K, Bauer U, Schaeffer D. Coronavirus-related health literacy: a cross-sectional study in adults during the COVID-19 Infodemic in Germany. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155503.

47.

Tan SS-L, Goonawardene N. Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(1):e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5729.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Azzam A, Bresler D, Leon A, Maggio L, Whitaker E, Heilman J, et al. Why medical schools should embrace Wikipedia: final-year medical student contributions to Wikipedia articles for academic credit at one school. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):194–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001381.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Richards T, Scowcroft H. BMJ’s international patient and public advisory panel. Patient and public involvement in covid-19 policy making. BMJ. 2020;370:m2575.CrossRef

50.

Burkell J. Health information seals of approval: what do they signify? Inf Commun Soc. 2004;7(4):491–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118042000305610.CrossRef

Title: Quality of web-based information at the beginning of a global pandemic: a cross-sectional infodemiology study investigating preventive measures and self care methods of the coronavirus disease 2019
Authors: Jenny Stern
Susanne Georgsson
Tommy Carlsson
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Care
COVID-19
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11141-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Quality of web-based information at the beginning of a global pandemic: a cross-sectional infodemiology study investigating preventive measures and self care methods of the coronavirus disease 2019

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Should international borders re-open? The impact of travel restrictions on COVID-19 importation risk

“Deadly”, “fierce”, “shameful”: notions of antiretroviral therapy, stigma and masculinities intersecting men’s life-course in Blantyre, Malawi

An innovative and integrated model for global outbreak response and research - a case study of the UK Public Health Rapid Support Team (UK-PHRST)

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the health-seeking behaviour of an Asian population with acute respiratory infections in a densely populated community

Youth susceptibility to tobacco use: is it general or specific?

Educational inequalities, urbanicity and levels of non-communicable diseases risk factors: evaluating trends in Argentina (2005–2013)