Critique of Health Related Information Sources
Critique of Health Related information sources
Abstract
Background - The internet is a vast source of information containing over 70 000 health related sites and discerning credible sites can often be a challenging task. It is important however so that reliable information can be obtained.
Methods – A series of critique questions were devised to determine the credibility of a health based online journal article and health based website. Questions were determined according to guidelines based on accuracy, links to authority, current relevance, scope of coverage, objectivity and design of each source advised by Hendrix and Winters (2001) [2].
Findings - Journal Article; was deemed a credible source coming from a peer reviewed journal with many credible references and no apparent bias or conflict of interest. The main author had significant authority and relevance in the given field and discussions were examined in depth. Most limitations are accounted for though no mention was made regarding possible complications of using slightly out dated data.
Findings – Website; was deemed a non-credible source according the critique questions. Very few authors could be linked to articles and most articles were associated with product promotion indicating high levels of bias. While articles were maximum 4 years old, no references were made to original findings and therefore age and accuracy of data could not be confirmed.
Conclusion – keeping in mind critiquing criteria is important when discerning any information sourced from the internet whether it is peer-reviewed or not as this does not guarantee 100% credibility. The website chosen was relatively easy to discern. More thought and critical thinking would be required to discern more popular health websites.
Introduction
Websites can be created by anyone with access to a computer and internet [1] and are subject too misleading or incorrect information whether accidentally or maliciously [2]. There are over 70
Abstract
Background - The internet is a vast source of information containing over 70 000 health related sites and discerning credible sites can often be a challenging task. It is important however so that reliable information can be obtained.
Methods – A series of critique questions were devised to determine the credibility of a health based online journal article and health based website. Questions were determined according to guidelines based on accuracy, links to authority, current relevance, scope of coverage, objectivity and design of each source advised by Hendrix and Winters (2001) [2].
Findings - Journal Article; was deemed a credible source coming from a peer reviewed journal with many credible references and no apparent bias or conflict of interest. The main author had significant authority and relevance in the given field and discussions were examined in depth. Most limitations are accounted for though no mention was made regarding possible complications of using slightly out dated data.
Findings – Website; was deemed a non-credible source according the critique questions. Very few authors could be linked to articles and most articles were associated with product promotion indicating high levels of bias. While articles were maximum 4 years old, no references were made to original findings and therefore age and accuracy of data could not be confirmed.
Conclusion – keeping in mind critiquing criteria is important when discerning any information sourced from the internet whether it is peer-reviewed or not as this does not guarantee 100% credibility. The website chosen was relatively easy to discern. More thought and critical thinking would be required to discern more popular health websites.
Introduction
Websites can be created by anyone with access to a computer and internet [1] and are subject too misleading or incorrect information whether accidentally or maliciously [2]. There are over 70
References: (4) Kunst H, Groot D, Latthe PM, Latthe M, Khan KS. Accuracy of information on apparently credible websites: Survey of five common health topics. Br Med J 2002 Mar 09;324(7337):581-2. (8) Good Health Now! [internet] No Date [cited 2012 Sep 13] Available from: http://www.goodhealth.com.au/ (9) Australian Food and Nutrient Database (1999): Australian and New Zealand Food Authority (10) McLennan W & Podger A (1998); National Nutrition Survey. Nutrient Intakes and Physical Measurements, Catalogue No. 4805.0 Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (13) Australian Government - National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC Levels of Evidence and Grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. 2009 Dec.