4.5 Article

Internet information on colorectal cancer: commercialization and lack of quality control

Journal

COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 352-356

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01316.x

Keywords

colorectal cancer; information technology; internet; bioethics; websites

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the internet as a source of information for colorectal cancer (CRC). Method Six of the most common search engines (Yahoo, Google, MSN search, Alta Vista, Excite and Lycos) were used for the search of the generic term 'CRC'. First 300 links were analysed and classified by information type, provider, readership and commercial orientation. Results The average time delay was 1.70 s before matches were located. A total of 3.2827 million matches on CRC were found using the six search engines ranging from 700 (Excite) to 1 417 000 (Lycos) websites. Approximately 50% of the links were based on information from textbooks or governmental websites. Commercial companies giving information about private hospitals and products provided over 50% of the websites on CRC. The distribution of target readers was uneven, although a majority of websites were delivering CRC information to public and patients. Readability of information was difficult to comprehend by the public. Conclusion The internet is becoming an essential tool for disseminating information about CRC to consumers. Half of the links on CRC are commercially oriented, containing information on goods or private health services. Less than 1% information is being provided by professional societies. To provide relevant CRC information, key consensus criteria for evaluating healthcare-related websites have to be established. There is an urgent need for CRC information on the internet to be regulated through the establishment of government-funded organizations (e.g. NHS) or professional societies (e.g. ACPGBI).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available