Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Quality of websites of obstetrics and gynecology departments: a cross-sectional study

Authors: Günther A Rezniczek, Laura Küppers, Hubertus Heuer, Lukas A Hefler, Bernd Buerkle, Clemens B Tempfer

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The internet has become an easily accessible and widely used source of healthcare information. There are, however, no standardized or commonly accepted criteria for the quality of Obstetrics and Gynecology websites. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the quality of websites of Obstetrics and Gynecology departments in German-speaking countries and to compare websites nationally and internationally.

Methods

We scored 672 websites from Germany (n = 566), Austria (n = 57), and Switzerland (n = 49) using the objective criteria: Google search rank (2 items), technical aspects (11 items), navigation (8 items), and content (6 items) for a 26 point score. Scores were compared nationally and internationally. Multivariable regression models assessed good quality scores (≥50% of maximum) as the dependent variables and country, academic affiliation, being member of a healthcare consortium, confessional affiliation, and content management system (CMS) use as independent variables.

Results

The mean score of websites was 13.8 ± 3.3. 4.2% were rated as good (≥75% of maximum), 61.8% as fair (≥50% of maximum). German (14.0 ± 3.2) and Swiss (13.8 ± 4.0) websites scored significantly higher compared to Austrian websites (11.6 ± 2.5) (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005, respectively). Within Germany, academic had higher scores than non-academic departments (14.9 ± 3.2 vs. 13.7 ± 3.1, P < 0.001). Single institutions had higher scores compared to healthcare consortium institutions (14.1 ± 3.2 vs. 13.2 ± 2.6, P = 0.003). Departments in Northern and Southern states had higher scores compared to Eastern states (14.4 ± 3.2 and 14.2 ± 3.2 vs. 13.0 ± 3.0, P < 0.001). In multivariate regression models, all subscores (all: P < 0.001) independently predicted a website’s reaching a good quality score, with navigation subscore as strongest predictor. Affiliations were predictors for some good individual subscores, but not for others. High content subscore was associated with good Google search rank, technical aspects, and navigation subscores.

Conclusions

The quality of websites of Obstetrics and Gynecology departments varies widely. We found marked differences depending on country, affiliation, and region.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Huang JYJ, Al-Fozan H, Tan SL, Tulandi T. Internet use by patients seeking infertility treatment. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;83:75–6.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Haagen EC, Tuil W, Hendriks J, de Bruijn RPJ, Braat DDM, Kremer JAM. Current Internet use and preferences of IVF and ICSI patients. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2073–8.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Weissman A, Gotlieb L, Ward S, Greenblatt E, Casper RF. Use of the internet by infertile couples. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1179–82.PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2691–700.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Covolo L, Capelli M, Ceretti E, Feretti D, Caimi L, Gelatti U. Nutritional supplements for diabetes sold on the internet: business or health promotion? BMC Public Health. 2013;13:777.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
7.
Agricola E, Gesualdo F, Pandolfi E, Gonfiantini MV, Carloni E, Mastroiacovo P, et al. Does googling for preconception care result in information consistent with international guidelines: a comparison of information found by Italian women of childbearing age and health professionals. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:14.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
Klila H, Chatton A, Zermatten A, Khan R, Preisig M, Khazaal Y. Quality of Web-based information on obsessive compulsive disorder. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2013;9:1717–23.PubMedCentralPubMed
9.
Ogah I, Wassersug RJ. How reliable are “reputable sources” for medical information on the internet? The case of hormonal therapy to treat prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:1546–52.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Neumark Y, Flum L, Lopez-Quintero C, Shtarkshall R. Quality of online health information about oral contraceptives from Hebrew-language websites. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012;1:38.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
11.
Boyer C, Selby M, Appel RD. The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health web sites. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998;52(Pt 2):1163–6.PubMed
12.
Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites American Medical Association. JAMA. 2000;283:1600–6.PubMedCrossRef
13.
eEurope 2002. Quality Criteria for Health Related Websites. J Med Internet Res. 2002;4:E15.
14.
15.
Pérez-López FR, Pérez R, Gonzalo R. Assessing the content and quality of information on the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis on the World Wide Web. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2006;22:669–75.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Farrell KD, Robinson LM, Baydock SA, Farrell SA, Irving LE, O‘Connell CM. A survey of Canadian websites providing information about female urinary incontinence. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006;28:700–12.PubMed
17.
Sacks S, Abenhaim HA. How evidence-based is the information on the internet about nausea and vomiting of pregnancy? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35:697–703.PubMed
18.
Manz C, Ross JS, Grande D. Marketing to physicians in a digital world. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1857–9.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Omurtag K, Jimenez PT, Ratts V, Odem R, Cooper AR. The ART of social networking: how SART member clinics are connecting with patients online. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:88–94.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
20.
Baazeem M, Abenhaim H. Google and women‘s health-related issues: what does the search engine data reveal? Online J Public Health Inform. 2014;6:e187.PubMedCentralPubMed
21.
Measuring the Information Society Report. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland; 2014.
22.
Boyer C, Gaudinat A, Baujard V, Geissbühler A. Health on the net foundation: assessing the quality of health web pages all over the world. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129:1017–21.PubMed
23.
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;53:105–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
24.
Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Coquard O, Fernandez S, Khan R, et al. Brief DISCERN, six questions for the evaluation of evidence-based content of health-related websites. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:33–7.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Eysenbach G, Köhler C, Yihune G, Lampe K, Cross P, Brickley D. A framework for improving the quality of health information on the world-wide-web and bettering public (e-)health: the MedCERTAIN approach. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84:1450–4.PubMed
26.
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;277:1244–5.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Abbott VP. Web page quality: can we measure it and what do we find? A report of exploratory findings. J Public Health Med. 2000;22:191–7.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Gagliardi A, Jadad AR. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ. 2002;324:569–73.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
29.
Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA. 1998;279:611–4.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Nölke L, Mensing M, Krämer A, Hornberg C. Sociodemographic and health-(care-)related characteristics of online health information seekers: a cross-sectional German study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:31.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
Kisely S, Ong G, Takyar A. A survey of the quality of web based information on the treatment of schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2003;37:85–91.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Zullino D, Khan R. HON label and discern as content quality indicators of health-related websites. Psychiatr Q. 2012;83:15–27.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Morel V, Chatton A, Cochand S, Zullino D, Khazaal Y. Quality of web-based information on bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2008;110:265–9.PubMedCrossRef
36.
37.
Huang Jack YJ, Discepola F, Al-Fozan H, Tulandi T. Quality of fertility clinic websites. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:538–44.PubMedCrossRef
38.
39.
Statistisches Jahrbuch. Deutschland und Internationales. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt; 2014.
40.
Ryu G. Lessons from unified Germany and their implications for healthcare in the unification of the Korean Peninsula. J Prev Med Public Health. 2013;46:127–33.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
Dunne S, Cummins NM, Hannigan A, Shannon B, Dunne C, Cullen W. A method for the design and development of medical or health care information websites to optimize search engine results page rankings on Google. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e183.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Quality of websites of obstetrics and gynecology departments: a cross-sectional study
Authors
Günther A Rezniczek
Laura Küppers
Hubertus Heuer
Lukas A Hefler
Bernd Buerkle
Clemens B Tempfer
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0537-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

The MamaMiso study of self-administered misoprostol to prevent bleeding after childbirth in rural Uganda: a community-based, placebo-controlled randomised trial

Research article

Correlating mechanical work with energy consumption during gait throughout pregnancy

Research article

Small for gestational age births among South Indian women: temporal trend and risk factors from 1996 to 2010

Research article

Exploring the intangible economic costs of stillbirth

Research article

Immigrants from conflict-zone countries: an observational comparison study of obstetric outcomes in a low-risk maternity ward in Norway

Research article

Factors affecting institutional delivery in rural Chitwan district of Nepal: a community-based cross-sectional study