download free tom standage the victorian internet pdf files

Patients and caregivers may want simple explanations and reassurance, whereas healthcare professionals may want data from clinical trials. Furthermore, different users may have different criteria for quality. Health information on the internet ranges from personal accounts of illnesses and patient discussion groups to peer reviewed journal articles and clinical decision support tools.ĭefining a single quality standard for such a disparate collection of resources is challenging. As our international roundup shows (pp 566-7), countries now seem poised to get in on the act, although little beyond urban myths exists to justify the level of their concerns. However, the proliferation of tools for assessing quality continues unabated, fuelled by anxieties about patient harm. Generating yet more unproved instruments looks like another activity that researchers could usefully stop. Four years later, they found another 51-all of them unvalidated (p ).

In 1997 Gagliardi and Jadad identified 47 instruments for measuring healthcare quality on the internet. With at least 80 studies reporting similar findings (G Eysenbach, personal communication), we need no more convincing that the quality of information on the web varies as widely as it does in other media.

Pick any medical problem today, and the chances are you'll find the same. Five years ago Impicciatore and colleagues reviewed website advice on managing fever in children and concluded that it varied widely in terms of accuracy, completeness, and consistency. This week's theme issue attempts to provide a framework for thinking about the quality of health information on the internet-a source of anxiety almost since its first appearance.

Download free tom standage the victorian internet pdf files