HealthRatings.org Revisits the 20 Most-Trafficked Health Information Sites
Six Clear Choices for Best Health Info Among Web's Top 20; Five Sites Rate Mediocre or Worse
Research Conducted by:
Consumer Reports WebWatch and the Health Improvement Institute (HII)
Consumer Reports WebWatch
101 Truman Ave.
Yonkers, N.Y., USA 10703-1057
View Ratings
Please Note: HealthRatings.org has since been updated with a new round of ratings. In order to access the ratings discussed here, please click on the drop-down box in the lower left-hand corner of the HealthRatings.org homepage.
Abstract
Raters scored six of the Web's most popular health information sites as excellent in ratings released today by Consumer Reports WebWatch and the Health Improvement Institute, while five scored mediocre or worse.
Three of the six top-rated sites are published by non-profit organizations, three for-profit. Both the lowest-rated sites are for-profit. The 12 raters who tested the sites include medical doctors, health care industry executives, medical librarians and health Web site senior producers and executives. A three-person committee reviewed their qualifications to be raters.
Results
* Of the 20 sites rated, six were given the highest score, "Excellent;" four received a "Very Good" rating; five were given a rating of "Good;" three sites were rated "Fair;" and two received the lowest rating, "Poor."
* The best sites offered a clear distinction between editorial content and sponsored content.
* Sites rated "Excellent" included unbiased, peer-reviewed content written by health professionals.
* Sites rated "Fair" and "Poor" often failed to disclose that health content and surveys were sponsored by advertisers, published "sponsored content" that did not appear distinct from site content, or did not clearly display policies to correct false, misleading or incorrect information.
Methodology
Using a tool based on WebWatch's guidelines for Web site credibility and HII criteria for health information, a panel of health and medical experts examined 20 sites in-depth over a period of more than one month, then rated each using established Consumer Reports-style methods and the familiar trademarked symbols. The list was determined using Nielsen//NetRatings and WebWatch data.
Overall ratings scores were determined from ten different attributes, including identity, advertising and sponsorship disclosure, ease of use, privacy, contents, authorship, references, editorial policies and health information.
The ratings do not test the scientific accuracy and validity of the health information. However, a number of the ratings attributes are intended to evaluate information quality. Sites that scored well in contents, authorship, references and transparency of editorial policies scored the highest overall.
The 20 sites rated, ordered below by popularity measured by traffic (not by ratings score), are:
1. National Institutes of Health
2. WebMD
3. MSN Health & Fitness
4. About Health
5. MedicineNet.com
6. Yahoo! Health
7. MayoClinic.com
8. RealAge
9. AOL Health
10. Drugs.com
11. QualityHealth.com
12. Aetna InteliHealth
13. KidsHealth
14. Healthology
15. RxList
16. Everyday Health
17. MedHelp.org
18. Prevention.com
19. eMedicineHealth
20. familydoctor.org
This is the organizations' second rating of the Web's top information sites, published in full at HealthRatings.org. Ratings of diet sites were published in 2006. Since the 2005 ratings, at least three sites made improvements:
* About Health: In 2005 and again in 2006, raters penalized About.com and the diets portion of the site for not disclosing a policy and procedure to correct inaccurate information. The site now publishes a corrections policy.
* Drugs.com: When first rated in 2005, the site provided no explanation of mouse-over advertising. It now offers a complete explanation in expanded advertising policy. Raters also penalized the site for not disclosing a corrections policy. It now offers one of the best corrections policies reviewed.
* KidsHealth: Raters penalized the site for lack of a corrections policy during first round of ratings in 2005, and now offers a corrections policy.
|
