Moving with the web: what is the place for third party review in the age of web 2?

Samantha Adams
Erasmus MC - Dept of Health Policy (iBMG)

Topic: Consumer empowerment, patient-physician relationship, and sociotechnical issues
Track: Research
Type: Oral presentation

     Full text: Not available
     Slides: Not Available
     Last modified: April 29, 2008

Abstract
Background: Despite progress that has been made over the last ten years, the reliability of online health-related information remains a concern. [1] The increasing popularity of social networking sites and other applications understood under web 2.0 has only led to a renewal of such concern. [2] For example, information shared on blogs is considered too subjective; while the ability of the collective to correct mistakes in shared publishing formats (e.g.: wikis) is questioned. [3] New information exchange formats present new challenges to organizations that seek to point lay-end-users to quality web-based health information. Although review organizations try adapting to web developments, they currently utilize evaluation principles developed to assess static/less-frequently-changing websites. Where these organizations already face numerous challenges related to information review, they are now confronted with the insufficiency of current approaches for web 2.0. How do changes in web applications influence the role of third party reviewing organizations? Is a changed approach to reliability issues necessary?

Objective: This paper examines reliability issues related to the different applications that comprise web 2.0. It specifically addresses questions about the place for third party review in dealing with these issues.

Methods: Electronic surveys with open questions and blog discourse analysis were conducted. The surveys consisted of: web-based surveys conducted January-February 2008 with site providers from HONcode certified sites (n=33) and e-mail surveys conducted March-April 2008 with researchers and practitioners from different fields who share an interest in patient-centered web-based health information (n=9). The discourse analysis reflects the iterative nature of qualitative research. Because several researchers referred to “expert” web logs in their answers, these were also reviewed, to two degrees of separation (n=10). Individual blogs provide hundreds of pages of data; following blogs for one-three months provides a sufficient analysis base. [4]

Results: Understandings of web reliability are multiple. [1] Both sets of respondents and the blog authors reflected diverse concerns for both technical reliability and quality of content. Two common themes were increasing transparency of information production and guarding against explicit information manipulation (as opposed to mistakes) or technical abuse.

Site providers felt that web 2.0 was too new to comment on. They were unsure of the quality aspects of different applications but opined that current third-party certification is insufficient for dealing with subjective information that potentially changes daily. Those who advocated review felt that a shorter, more frequent review process (that concurrently examines content more in-depth) is necessary.

Researchers were arguably more familiar with reliability issues, but included a number of older applications not usually attributed to web 2.0. They were less concerned about the extremity of reliability issues and less enthusiastic about the idea of authoritative oversight of content, both of which are surprising.

Conclusions: The role for third parties depends on the audience. While researchers fail to see their effectiveness for end-users, site providers find them important, not for review, but rather for raising awareness and initiating dialogue. Respondents do not rule out third party review as a feasible practice, but feel it needs to be revamped.

References
[1] Adams SA. Under Construction: Reviewing and Producing Information Reliability on the web. Erasmus University Rotterdam; 2006.

[2] Tsai C, Tsai S, Zeng-Treitler Q, Liang B. Patient-Centered Consumer Health Social Network Websites: A Pilot Study of Quality of User-Generated Health Information. Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium. 2007.

[3] Keen A. The Cult of the Amateur. The cult of the amateur: how today’s internet is killing our culture. New York: Doubleday; 2007

[4].Herring SC, Scheidt LA, Bonus S, Wright E. 2005. Weblogs as bridging genre. Information, Technology and People 2005;18(2): 142-171.

Comments on this paper
      No comments made on this paper.