 |
Is the
resource credible?
 |
Is the
author's name (or the name of the
organization responsible for the document)
clearly stated?
|
 |
If the author
is identified, is he or she a professional
or accredited authority on the subject?
|
 |
If not, does
the author state his/her perspective on the
subject?
|
 |
If an
organization is responsible for the
information, is it a reputable organization
recognized as an authority on the subject?
|
 |
If medical
information is given by a non-professional,
is this clearly said?
|
 |
What kinds of
evidence are provided to endorse a specific
treatment or service? Keep in mind that
scientific studies and research have a
different credibility than first-hand
experience.
|
 |
Does the site
provide contact information about the author
(for example, full name, address, phone
number, e-mail address)?
|
|
 |
 |
Is the
content relevant to you?
 |
Does the
content discuss the issue(s) you're
interested in?
|
 |
Does it match
what you are looking for?
|
 |
Is there
enough detail or does the information seem
superficial?
|
 |
Does the site
have original content or does it only link
to other sites?
|
 |
Is the
information presented within a
UK
context? |
|
 |
 |
Does the site
reflect a broad view of health?
For example, does
the content seem to recognize that health:
 |
has many
elements
|
 |
is dynamic and
changing
|
 |
can be
different for different groups of people,
and
|
 |
is determined
by many factors, including basic things like
income? |
|
 |
 |
Is the
resource timely?
 |
Is the
information reviewed and/or updated often
enough given the content? For example, if it
deals with the latest in safety features on
child car seats, has it been changed lately?
|
 |
Is the date of
the last update clearly marked on each item
or screen?
|
 |
If information
is only valid for a short time, is this fact
clearly labelled? |
|
 |
 |
Is there
clear and adequate disclosure?
 |
Is the
author's interest and/or mandate in
developing and sharing this information
clear? For example, is a non-profit
organization trying to promote exercise and
active living or is a fitness product
company trying to sell you exercises
equipment?
|
 |
Is there
potential for bias or conflict of interest?
For example, is a company telling you that
only their product or service is valuable?
|
 |
Are both (or
all) sides of the issue presented?
|
 |
If not, does
the resource state that it presents only one
side of an issue? For example, a site that
promotes a vegetarian diet should indicate
that there are other dietary options, or
clearly state that they are only presenting
one side of a multifaceted issue.
|
 |
Are commercial
links and/or sponsorships clearly stated?
|
 |
Are these
sponsorships separate from the health
information content?
|
 |
If the site
collects or requests information about you,
do they tell you exactly why they want this
information?
|
 |
Are their
privacy guidelines stated?
|
 |
If you have to
register to use the site, is the reason
clear and your privacy ensured? |
|
 |
 |
Are there
clear caution statements?
 |
Does the site
offer a clear statement that health
information should not be taken as health
advice or a substitute for visiting a health
professional?
|
 |
If there are
fees associated with use of the resources on
the site, are they clearly explained?
|
|
 |
 |
Is the site
user-friendly?
 |
Is the
information presented in a clear manner?
|
 |
Can you
contact the author/administrator by e-mail
if you have difficulties using the site
|
|
 |
 |
Does the site
treat you with respect?
 |
For example,
is the "voice" the site uses to talk to
readers friendly? An example of an
unfriendly voice is one that seems to place
all of the responsibility for health on the
individual; a friendly, health promoting
site would recognize the many other factors
that affect people's health.
|
|
 |
 |
Does the site
give you opportunities to participate?
 |
For example,
is there an e-mail address where you can
write to offer feedback, make suggestions,
or get involved in actions in your area of
concern?
|
|