Portals to Wonderland: Health portals lead to confusing information about the effects of health care
© Glenton et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2005
Received: 29 November 2004
Accepted: 15 March 2005
Published: 15 March 2005
The Internet offers a seemingly endless amount of health information of varying quality. Health portals, which provide entry points to quality-controlled collections of websites, have been hailed as a solution to this problem. The objective of this study is to assess the extent to which government-run health portals provide access to relevant, valid and understandable information about the effects of health care.
We selected eight clinically relevant questions for which there was a systematic review, searched four portals for answers, and compared the answers we found to the results of the systematic reviews.
Our searches resulted in 3400 hits, 155 of which mentioned both the condition and the intervention in one of the eight questions. Sixty-three of the 155 web pages did not give any information about the effect of the intervention. Seventy-seven qualitatively described the effects of the intervention. Twenty-six of these had information that was too unclear to be categorised; 15 were not consistent with the systematic review; and 36 were consistent with the review, but usually did not mention what happens without the intervention, what outcomes have been measured or when they were measured. Fifteen web pages quantitatively described effects. Four of these were abstracts from the systematic review, nine had information that was incomplete and potentially misleading because of a lack of information about people not receiving the intervention and the length of follow-up; one had information that was consistent with the review, but only referred to three trials whereas the review included six; and one was consistent with the review.
Information accessible through health portals is unlikely to be based on systematic reviews and is often unclear, incomplete and misleading. Portals are only as good as the websites they lead to. Investments in national health portals are unlikely to benefit consumers without investments in the production and maintenance of relevant, valid and understandable information to which the portals lead.
"'Be what you would seem to be' – or, if you'd like it put more simply – 'Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."' (Lewis Caroll (1832 – 1898), Alice in Wonderland)
The internet offers a seemingly endless amount of health information, but the quality of this information is variable . A bewildering array of criteria are used to rate the quality of this information, but none of these have been validated and many of them have a short life span . Guidelines exist to help consumers to critically appraise the relevance and validity of health information [3–6], but few people have the time and skills to apply such guidelines.
Health portals, which provide entry points to quality-controlled collections of websites, have been hailed as a solution to these problems. The development of health portals by national governments can be seen as a support of recent legislation and policies establishing the right for individuals to participate in decisions regarding their health care. Information that supports an informed choice about health care should include reliable information about the relative benefits and harms of relevant options . Moreover, this information should be presented in such a way that it is easily understood. Consistent presentations across various treatment options can make it easier to understand information and makes it easier to make comparisons across treatments.
The objectives of this study were to assess the extent to which health portals provide easy access to relevant, valid and understandable information about the effects of health care. We examined four English-language government-run health portals:
• Canadian Health Network – Canada 
• HealthInsite – Australia 
• MEDLINEplus – USA 
• NHS Direct Online – England 
Health portal goals and selection guidelines
Selection guidelines for included sites
Canadian Health Network
"CHN's mission is to support Canadians in making informed choices about their health, by providing access to multiple sources of credible and practical e-health information."
• Does the organization have timely and credible information on health promotion and disease prevention?
• Is authorship clearly stated?
• If the source is not a professionally or legally accredited authority, is there sufficient supporting information to establish an informed perspective.
• If a non-professional gives medical information, is this fact clearly stated?
• Are original sources clearly referenced?
• Are claims relating to the benefits of a specific health promotion/disease prevention services supported by appropriate, balanced evidence?
• Is the content original, and of sufficient depth to warrant a link?
• Is the resource relevant to the CHN mission statement?
• Is the information updated or reviewed on an adequate basis given the content?
• If the resource only presents one-side of a controversial issue, is this made explicit?
"(HealthInsite) aims to improve the health of Australians by providing easy access to quality information about human health."
Sites must have a written policy and procedure that
• Includes a policy that each resource is authored by a person or group with appropriate qualifications/experience
• Includes a procedure for appropriate attribution of resources
• Includes a review process. The policy needs to cite positions/qualifications/names of who reviews
• Details the final approval process (including responsibility/qualifications)
• The date of publication and, where appropriate, date of previous versions must also be given.
"MedlinePlus is designed to help you find appropriate, authoritative health information."
• The source of the content is established, respected and dependable. A list of advisory board members or consultants is published on the site.
• The information provided is appropriate to the audience level, well-organized and easy to use.
• Information is from primary resources (i.e., textual material, abstracts, Web pages).
• The primary purpose of the Web page is educational and not to sell a product or service.
• The source for the contents of the Web page(s) and the entity responsible for maintaining the Web site is clear.
• Information is current or an update date is included.
• The site provides unique information to the topic with a minimum of redundancy and overlap between resources.
NHS Direct Online
To provide high quality health information and advice for the people of England and Wales
No information provided.
Health care questions
Antidepressants versus psychological treatment versus both
Lumbar disc prolapse
Nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy
Vaginal yeast infection
Oral versus intravaginal antifungal agents
Research topics covered by systematic reviews were identified by searching through the journals Evidence Based Mental Health and Evidence Based Medicine 2000–2002. Topics presented in these journals are selected for their presumed clinical relevance. For the sake of consistency, we chose reviews from The Cochrane Library. Topics were chosen to cover a variation in age, sex, mental/physical health, and chronic/acute illness.
alzheimer and galantamine/reminyl
bulimia and treatment
jeg lag and melatonin
jet lag melatonin
Lumbar disc prolapse
lumbar disc prolapse
herniated disk/disc AND surgery
mefloquine and malaria
Nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy
morning sickness and treatment
early pregnancy nausea
schizophrenia and haloperidol
Vaginal yeast infection
+yeast +infection +treatment
yeast infection and treatment
yeast infection treatment
Between January and February 2004 two researchers (CG and EJP) independently carried out searches for each topic within each portal. Web pages were included if they referred to both the condition and the intervention. When the systematic review in question covered several interventions, web pages describing any one of these interventions were included. Web pages were only included if the portal linked directly to them or to other pages on the same web site.
Web pages were excluded if they were duplicates or if they were clearly not intended as information about the conditions and interventions. Information intended for a professional audience was also excluded when a consumer version of the same information was available. Discrepancies between the researchers' search results were resolved through discussion.
Coding of qualitative information
Statements coded as expressing effect
You may benefit from the medication
It has helped many patients
It is said to improve symptoms
Statements coded as not expressing effect
The treatment can be used
Treatment may include
Your doctor may recommend the treatment
Statements coded as "effective"
Is effective/highly effective/(often) very effective
Has proven effective/helpful/beneficial
Has been found/reported to be helpful/effective
Has an effect on the symptoms
Improves the symptoms
Enjoys a good success rate
Works/(usually) works well
Is the most effective drug
X was more effective than Y
Was better than other therapies and better than no treatment
Strong evidence on the effectiveness of X when compared with Y
In clinical trials, some people who took the drug compared to individuals who took a placebo showed some improvement
People treated with the drug showed improvements in symptoms
Reduces the PANSS scores significantly more than placebo
You can protect yourself against X by taking Y
Can clear up your symptoms in a couple of days and cure the infection within a week
Many studies have shown the treatment to be useful/can ease the symptoms
Many people respond to the treatment
Most people do very well after treatment
These treatments have been beneficial to many women
Relieves symptoms in the majority of properly selected patients
Have helped many patients
Is recommended/should be recommended
These drugs all had similar ability to relieve the symptoms
Helps some sufferers/some people
Of some value in certain patients
Statements coded as "probably effective"
There have been reports of some benefits
Appears to be helpful
Results/evidence suggest that the treatment is beneficial/has beneficial effects
Statements coded as "unknown effect"
Have not been proven
Results are variable
Some studies suggest this is effective..other studies have found that it doesn't help
Effectiveness for many people is unknown
Results of studies have been inconsistent
The evidence is uncertain
The treatment is at present, an experimental approach.
Statements coded as "not effective"
Statements coded as "probably not effective"
Statements coded as unclear
Not all people taking these drugs benefit from them
The treatment is not always successful
For some people, the treatment may help prevent some symptoms from becoming worse
For some people, the treatment is prescribed to possibly delay the worsening of some of their symptoms
Does the treatment work? Not always
The treatment is of not more benefit than the other treatments
May help/relieve pain/improve symptoms/relieve symptoms/be a good option
Some studies have shown that (the treatment) may decrease (the symptoms)
Can help/improve symptoms/relieve symptoms
Is said to improve symptoms
The effects of the treatment varies for different people. Some will not notice any effect, while others may find that their condition improves slightly
Sixty-three of the 155 web pages that mentioned both the condition and the intervention in question did not give any information about the effect of the intervention. The remaining 92 web pages presented information about effect either in qualitative or quantitative terms.
Seventy-seven of the included web pages qualitatively described the effects of the interventions. It was frequently difficult to judge what was and was not a statement about the effects of an intervention and what a statement meant in terms of the effectiveness of an intervention. We therefore asked 16 colleagues to categorise a selection of statements. Frequently there was little agreement among them. The use of the word "may" was particularly confusing. For instance, the statement "for some people in the early and middle stages of the disease, galantamine may help prevent some symptoms from becoming worse for a limited time" was categorised as "effective" by one person, "probably effective" by seven, "unknown effectiveness" by five, and "unclear" by three. Statements about what clinicians do were also confusing, for example "your doctor may recommend surgery."
Based on the input of our colleagues the three of us agreed on the final code list (Table 5) that was used to categorize the qualitative statements of effect. The specific context of a statement was also taken into account in the coding.
Twenty-six of the 77 web pages with qualitative statements of effect were categorised as "unclear" because it was not possible to determine what the statement meant about the effectiveness of the intervention. Of the 51 web pages that could be categorised 15 were not consistent with the results of the systematic review and 36 were consistent. However, only four of the 36 that were consistent described what happened to people who did not receive the intervention and only four indicated how long the effect was likely to last.
In some cases, portals offered contradictory information. While websites on Health Insite, Canadian Health Network, and NHS Direct Online all support the use of ginger for the treatment of morning sickness, websites on Medline Plus include the following messages:
• "Try using ginger, which has proved effective in combating morning sickness."
• "Ginger has been studied in pregnant women and appears to be helpful."
• "Ginger" is not recommended for morning sickness, especially if you have a history of bleeding disorders or miscarriage. It may cause bleeding or impair fetal development.
Fifteen of the 155 included web pages quantitatively described the effects of the intervention. Some of these web pages also gave qualitative information, but in these cases only the quantitative information was categorised. Effects were presented in a variety of ways, including percentages, numbers needed to treat, frequencies and fractions. Four of the 15 web pages were abstracts of Cochrane systematic reviews. Nine had information that was judged to be incomplete and potentially misleading because outcomes for people who did not receive the intervention was not reported. In eight of these nine web pages, the length of follow-up was also not reported, despite the fact that this was relevant to the conditions in question. For example, one web page states that "good results are achieved in 80% to 90% of the cases" for patients receiving surgery for lumbar disc prolapse, implying that 80 to 90% of patients benefit from surgery, without specifying what proportion of similar patients have good results without surgery, what outcome measures "good results" refer to, or how long after surgery. The systematic review found that discectomy appeared to give fast short-term pain relief, but there was no good estimate of this effect, and that the effect on long-term pain relief was unknown.
Two of the fifteen web pages were consistent with the systematic review. One of these web pages compared the effect of oral versus vaginal antifungals for yeast infection. The other web page reported the effect of galantamine for Alzheimer's disease and was the only one, besides the Cochrane systematic review abstracts, that provided information about outcomes for people not using the intervention. This information, however, referred to three trials, whereas the systematic review included six trials.
The goal of this study was to evaluate the reliability of information about the effects of health care accessed through health portals that aim to facilitate access to reliable information. In most cases, it was difficult to know whether the information was reliable, in comparison to the results of systematic reviews, because of the incompleteness and vagueness of the information.
Generally, websites to which the portals led us did not compare the effects of an intervention with no intervention or an alternative intervention. They also did not give any information about when outcomes were measured or what outcomes were measured in the studies on which the information was based. The evidence on which the information was based was usually not stated.
Most of the web pages with information about effectiveness described effects qualitatively. This may reflect an assumption that qualitative presentations are easier to understand, or that information providers do not wish to express more than they know . However, qualitative descriptions mean different things to different people [21–23]. The difficulties that we and our colleagues had in categorising qualitative descriptions of effects is indicative of the difficulties that others are likely to have understanding the information that the portals lead to. Although most of the information was not as confusing as the quote from Alice in Wonderland at the beginning of this article, it was confusing and often left us wondering what the intended message was and how it related to the available evidence.
Included web pages per portal
Information about effects
Qualitative statements about the effect of the intervention
Quantitative statements about the effect of the intervention
Statement not consistent with review
Statement consistent with review
Cochrane review abstract
Statement incomplete and potentially misleading
Statement consistent but incomplete
Statement consistent with review
Canadian Health Network
NHS Direct Online
None of the health portals report considering how effects are presented in their selection criteria. Included web pages present information about the effects of health care in a variety of ways. Most often this information is presented in ways that may confuse and mislead users. The nature of portals limits any possibility of addressing these problems or providing user support for understanding the effects of health care.
By collecting websites from numerous sources, governments can avoid "recreating existing health information" and are able to present information "from multiple perspectives" . However, to compare the benefits of alternative interventions, it is still necessary for users to search through numerous web sites and piece together information that frequently uses different terminology for the same interventions and conditions, is presented in different formats, and is often vague, incomplete and difficult to understand. Portals depend on having information to which they can link. If reliable and understandable information does not already exist, the portals are of little value.
The information accessible through these four portals displays the same weaknesses as patient information generally [1, 25]. It is seldom based on systematic reviews and is often unclear, incomplete and misleading. People going through these portals to find information that can help them make an informed choice about any of the questions we posed are likely be disappointed with what they find. Portals are only as good as the websites they lead to. Establishing and maintaining national health portals is only worth the investment if an investment is also made in producing and maintaining relevant, valid and understandable information to which the portals lead.
- Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER: Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002, 287: 2691-700. 10.1001/jama.287.20.2691.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gagliardi A, Jadad AR: Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ. 2002, 324: 569-73. 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.569.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Milne R, Oliver S: Evidence-based consumer health information: developing teaching in critical appraisal skills. Int J Qual Health Care. 1996, 8: 439-45. 10.1016/S1353-4505(96)00063-4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Irwig J, Irwig L, Sweet M: Smart Health Choices: How to make informed health decisions. 1999, Leonards, Australia: Allen & UnwinGoogle Scholar
- Ademiluyia G, Reesb CE, Sheard CE: Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns. 2003, 50: 151-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- New York Online Acess to Health (NOAH): Ask NOAH About: Evidence Based Medicine (EBM). accessed 14 July 2004, [http://www.noah-health.org/english/ebhc/ebhc.html]
- Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Entwistle VA, Coulter A, O'Connor A, Rovner DR: Patient choice modules for summaries of clinical effectiveness: a proposal. BMJ. 2001, 322: 664-667. 10.1136/bmj.322.7287.664.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Canadian Health Network. [http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/]
- HealthInsite. [http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/]
- MEDLINEplus. [http://medlineplus.gov/]
- NHS Direct Online. [http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/]
- Olin J, Schneider L: Galantamine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2
- Bacaltchuk J, Hay P, Trefiglio R: Antidepressants versus psychological treatments and their combination for bulimia nervosa (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2
- Herxheimer A, Petrie KJ: Melatonin for the prevention and treatment of jet lag (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2
- Gibson JNA, Grant IC, Waddell G: Surgery for lumbar disc prolapse (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2
- Croft AMJ, Garner P: Mefloquine for preventing malaria in non-immune adult travellers (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2
- Jewell D, Young G: Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. 2002, Oxford: Update Software, 1
- Jewell D, Young G: Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2
- Joy CB, Adams CE, Lawrie SM: Haloperidol versus placebo for schizophrenia (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2
- Watson MC, Grimshaw JM, Bond CM, Mollison J, Ludbrook A: Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush). (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. 2004, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2
- Burkell J: What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004, 92: 200-8.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE: Communicating Evidence for Participatory Decision Making. JAMA. 2004, 291: 2359-66. 10.1001/jama.291.19.2359.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wills CE, Holmes-Rovner M: Patient comprehension of information for shared treatment decision making: state of the art and future directions. Patient Educ Couns. 2003, 50: 285-90. 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00051-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Moxey A, O'Connell D, McGettingan P, Henry D: Describing treatment effects to patients: how they are expressed makes a difference. J Gen Intern Med. 2003, 18: 948-59. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20928.x.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D: Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough?. BMJ. 1999, 318: 318-22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/5/7/prepub