Health Information

The Internet offers a wealth of health information. How do you know what is good information and what is less reliable? Here is a checklist to assist in evaluation the website information:

	Great health promotion website	Beware - there are some issues with this website
Checklist for a great Health Promotion Website	This checklist is an adaptation from Canadian Health Network^[1] checklist put together in consultation with a panel of experts on health information from the eEurope 2002 quality criteria for Helath related websites^[2] and from the Heath on the Net Code^[3]
Credible/authoritative	Author's name or organization responsible for the document is clearly stated, and is a professional or accredited authority on the subject Name and credentials of all providers of information is provided If medical information is given by a non-professional, this is clearly stated Scientific studies and research endorse the specific treatment or service sources for all information is provided with date of publication	The author is not a professsional or accredited authority on the subject and states his/her perspective on the subject (Eg. "I'm a cancer survivor") First-hand experience is the only evidence provided to endorse the treatment or service
Up to date?	Regular updating of the site, with date of last update clearly marked	No/not mentioned
Relevant?	The content matches what you are looking for and has enough detail. The information is present within a Canadian context	The information seems superficial The criteria on the left are not met
Transparent?	The author's interest and/or mandate in developing and sharing this information is clear? (Non-profit organization trying to promote health versus company trying to sell you something?) Both (or all) sides of the issue are presented, and if not, it indicates that it presents only one side of the issue	Ther is potential for bias or conflict of interest (For example, is a company telling that only their product or service is valuable?)
Adequate financial disclosure?	Commercial links and/or sponsorships are clearly stated and are separate from the health information content	No/not mentioned
Ensures privacy?	If the site collects or requests information about you, they tell exactly why they want this information and privacy guidelines are stated	No/not mentioned
Complementary?	The site offers a clear statement tat health information should not be taken as health advice or a substitute for visited a health professional	No
Broad view of health?	Eg.: recognizes that health has many elements, is dynamic and changing, can be different for different groups of people, and is determined by many factor	No/not mentioned
Accesible/user-friendly?	The information presented in a clear manner, and the site is searchable, readable and usable. The author/administrator can be contacted by email for user feedback	No
Respectuf?	The "voice" the site uses to talk to readers is respectful	The "voice" the site uses to talk to readers seems (for example) to place all of the responsibility for health on the individual and does not seem respectful

**This chart is an adaptation of one created by Dr. Miriam Lacasse

^{^[1] Canadian Health Network, 2008 (no more available online)}
^{^[2]eEurope 2002. J Med Internet Res 2002 :4(3) :e15}
^{^[3]www.hon.ch}