The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Adding Dimensions to the Analysis of the Quality of Health Information of Websites Returned by Google: Cluster Analysis Identifies Patterns of Websites According to their Classification and the Type of Intervention Described
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00204 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mubashar Yaqub, Pietro Ghezzi |
| Abstract |
Most of the instruments used to assess the quality of health information on the Web (e.g., the JAMA criteria) only analyze one dimension of information quality (IQ), trustworthiness. In this study, we analyzed the type of intervention that websites describe, whether supported by evidence-based medicine (EBM) or not, to provide a further dimension of IQ, accuracy, and correlated this with the established criteria. We searched Google for "migraine cure" and analyzed the first 200 websites for: (1) JAMA criteria (authorship, attribution, disclosure, currency); (2) class of websites (commercial, health portals, professional, patient groups, no-profit); and (3) type of intervention described (approved drugs, alternative medicine, food, procedures, lifestyle, drugs still at the research stage). We used hierarchical cluster analysis to identify different patterns of websites according to their classification and the information provided. Subgroup analysis on the first 10 websites returned was performed. Google returned health portals (44%), followed by commercial websites (31%) and journalism websites (11%). The type of intervention mentioned most often was alternative medicine (55%), followed by procedures (49%), lifestyle (42%), food (41%), and approved drugs (35%). Cluster analysis indicated that health portals are more likely to describe more than one type of treatment while commercial websites most often describe only one. The average JAMA score of commercial websites was significantly lower than for health portals or journalism websites, and this was mainly due to lack of information on the authors of the text and indication of the date the information was written. Looking at the first 10 websites from Google, commercial websites are underrepresented and approved drugs overrepresented. Analyzing the type of therapies/prevention methods provides additional information to the trustworthiness measures, such as the JAMA score, and could be a convenient and objective indicator of websites whose information is based on EBM. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,408,961
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,413
of 9,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,419
of 267,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#18
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.