David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Is What You’re Reading Junk? Evaluating the Quality of Mental Health Websites, Part 1
by Mike Nichols on July 14, 2009
The internet allows patients, consumers, physicians, and other mental health care professionals to quickly access mental health information.
Millions of Americans search for mental health information on the web every year. Whether the information is needed for personal reasons or for a loved one, millions of mental health-related web pages are viewed. Sometimes the information found is authoritative, unbiased, and just what was needed. Other searches end in the retrieval of inaccurate, even dangerous, information.
How do you know whether the site you’re looking at presents valid, up-to-date information, or whether it is trying to sell you something, the rantings of a lunatic with an axe to grind, or otherwise bogus?
This article is intended to be a guide for you in your search for trustworthy information. It outlines the collective wisdom of medical librarians, mental health professionals, professional associations, and other experts who surf the web every day to discover quality information in support of clinical and scientific decision-making by professionals responsible for the nation’s mental health.
What is the purpose of the site?
This is the first question you should ask. Is the site informational? Is it intended to sell you something? Is the author ranting about a pet peeve or an off-the-wall theory?
The website should clearly state whether the information is intended for the consumer or the health professional. Many health information websites have two different areas — one for consumers, one for professionals. The design of the site should make selection of one area over the other clear to the user.
This question is related to who runs and pays for the site. An “About This Site” link should be present on the site. If it’s not there, it should raise red flags. But if it’s there, use it. The purpose of the site should be clearly stated and should help you evaluate the trustworthiness of the information.
Who owns the site? How is it funded?
Any good health-related Web site should make it easy for you to learn who is responsible for the site and its information. and how it is funded.
Can you easily identify the site sponsor? Sponsorship is important because it helps establish the site as respected and dependable. Does the site list advisory board members or consultants? This may give you further insights on the credibility of information published by the site.
The web address itself can provide additional information about the nature of the site and the sponsor’s intent.
Be on guard for bias and competing interests
Nearly every author of every article ever written has an unspoken agenda that guides their writing. Psychologists, and even researchers, can be influenced by their background and education. Psychiatrists are often influenced by pharmaceutical marketing materials and their own medical training.
Educated internet users can use this understanding of an author’s motivations to help discern the value of information found online. A research news brief from the National Institute of Mental Health is likely to be less biased than a research news brief from a pharmaceutical company. A press release from a university describing some new therapy research will tend to be more biased than the actual peer-reviewed study.
Beware of sites selling products or services. A site selling Anxiety “cures” has an obvious bias, and any articles found there should be taken with a large grain of salt. A pharmaceutical company’s site may have a mix of factual articles, such as drug information, and articles biased in favor of their products. Someone selling their psychotherapy services online may subtly shape their articles (or links to other articles) to reflect a more pro-therapy stance. The key is to understand that this bias exists in many articles found online, and to use caution in relying on the information they provide.
Authorship and affiliation are important
Every page on the internet has been authored by someone, somewhere, at some specific time in the past. Unfortunately, most pages on most sites do not include this very basic information. Every article should name its author, the date it was written, and include information about the author, including affiliations. If there is no short biography or affiliations listed, look for an “about” page for this information.
If authorship and affiliation are not readily evident, the reader should question the validity of the article. Authorship also helps one determine possible bias in the article’s presentation of information.
Authority and cited sources
One of the major points of contention raised by critics about blogging and online information is that it lacks filters. In other words, it is missing the editorial process: the fact checker correcting inaccurate information, the copy editor tweaking grammar, and the editor determining objectivity and relevance. In print publications, authority resides both in the identity of the author and with the publisher. This combination of individual and institutional authority lends the reader valuable clues about the credibility of the source material. This kind of authority is missing on the internet.
An important way to check the authority of mental health information online is to look for cited sources. Articles should have clinical research, authoritative articles and books, and other trustworthy sources of information as an integral part of the information provided. Every medical fact or figure should have references to back it up.
A person seeking mental health information online is seeking a balanced and authoritative understanding of the condition. However, this has become increasingly difficult because some websites and blogs blur the lines between facts and opinions. And sometimes we as readers tend to confuse facts with opinions — or emphasize one over the other — to the detriment of understanding.
If the article is the author’s opinion, it should be clearly stated. Opinions or advice should be clearly set apart from information that is “evidence-based” (that is, based on research results). Beware of articles that do not offer external medical evidence to back up their claims, or that do not make it clear that the opinion or advice offered is personal.
Resources used in this post:
by Mike Nichols on July 14, 2009
The internet allows patients, consumers, physicians, and other mental health care professionals to quickly access mental health information.
Millions of Americans search for mental health information on the web every year. Whether the information is needed for personal reasons or for a loved one, millions of mental health-related web pages are viewed. Sometimes the information found is authoritative, unbiased, and just what was needed. Other searches end in the retrieval of inaccurate, even dangerous, information.
How do you know whether the site you’re looking at presents valid, up-to-date information, or whether it is trying to sell you something, the rantings of a lunatic with an axe to grind, or otherwise bogus?
This article is intended to be a guide for you in your search for trustworthy information. It outlines the collective wisdom of medical librarians, mental health professionals, professional associations, and other experts who surf the web every day to discover quality information in support of clinical and scientific decision-making by professionals responsible for the nation’s mental health.
What is the purpose of the site?
This is the first question you should ask. Is the site informational? Is it intended to sell you something? Is the author ranting about a pet peeve or an off-the-wall theory?
The website should clearly state whether the information is intended for the consumer or the health professional. Many health information websites have two different areas — one for consumers, one for professionals. The design of the site should make selection of one area over the other clear to the user.
This question is related to who runs and pays for the site. An “About This Site” link should be present on the site. If it’s not there, it should raise red flags. But if it’s there, use it. The purpose of the site should be clearly stated and should help you evaluate the trustworthiness of the information.
Who owns the site? How is it funded?
Any good health-related Web site should make it easy for you to learn who is responsible for the site and its information. and how it is funded.
Can you easily identify the site sponsor? Sponsorship is important because it helps establish the site as respected and dependable. Does the site list advisory board members or consultants? This may give you further insights on the credibility of information published by the site.
The web address itself can provide additional information about the nature of the site and the sponsor’s intent.
- A government agency or site sponsored by the Federal government has .gov in the address.
- An educational institution is indicated by .edu in the address.
- A professional organization such as a scientific or research society [may] be identified as .org. For example, the American Cancer Society’s website is www.cancer.org.
- Commercial sites are most often identified by .com, and will identify the sponsor as a company, for example Merck & Co., the pharmaceutical firm.
- Non-commercial sites can be designated by .com, too, and also .net. The .com in the address is often chosen to make the site appear more professional or authoritative.
Be on guard for bias and competing interests
Nearly every author of every article ever written has an unspoken agenda that guides their writing. Psychologists, and even researchers, can be influenced by their background and education. Psychiatrists are often influenced by pharmaceutical marketing materials and their own medical training.
Educated internet users can use this understanding of an author’s motivations to help discern the value of information found online. A research news brief from the National Institute of Mental Health is likely to be less biased than a research news brief from a pharmaceutical company. A press release from a university describing some new therapy research will tend to be more biased than the actual peer-reviewed study.
Beware of sites selling products or services. A site selling Anxiety “cures” has an obvious bias, and any articles found there should be taken with a large grain of salt. A pharmaceutical company’s site may have a mix of factual articles, such as drug information, and articles biased in favor of their products. Someone selling their psychotherapy services online may subtly shape their articles (or links to other articles) to reflect a more pro-therapy stance. The key is to understand that this bias exists in many articles found online, and to use caution in relying on the information they provide.
Authorship and affiliation are important
Every page on the internet has been authored by someone, somewhere, at some specific time in the past. Unfortunately, most pages on most sites do not include this very basic information. Every article should name its author, the date it was written, and include information about the author, including affiliations. If there is no short biography or affiliations listed, look for an “about” page for this information.
If authorship and affiliation are not readily evident, the reader should question the validity of the article. Authorship also helps one determine possible bias in the article’s presentation of information.
Authority and cited sources
One of the major points of contention raised by critics about blogging and online information is that it lacks filters. In other words, it is missing the editorial process: the fact checker correcting inaccurate information, the copy editor tweaking grammar, and the editor determining objectivity and relevance. In print publications, authority resides both in the identity of the author and with the publisher. This combination of individual and institutional authority lends the reader valuable clues about the credibility of the source material. This kind of authority is missing on the internet.
An important way to check the authority of mental health information online is to look for cited sources. Articles should have clinical research, authoritative articles and books, and other trustworthy sources of information as an integral part of the information provided. Every medical fact or figure should have references to back it up.
A person seeking mental health information online is seeking a balanced and authoritative understanding of the condition. However, this has become increasingly difficult because some websites and blogs blur the lines between facts and opinions. And sometimes we as readers tend to confuse facts with opinions — or emphasize one over the other — to the detriment of understanding.
If the article is the author’s opinion, it should be clearly stated. Opinions or advice should be clearly set apart from information that is “evidence-based” (that is, based on research results). Beware of articles that do not offer external medical evidence to back up their claims, or that do not make it clear that the opinion or advice offered is personal.
Resources used in this post:
- Grohol, John M. (2007, January 11). Reliability and Validity in a Web 2.0 World.
- Grohol, John M. (2007, December 4). Evaluating the Quality of Mental Health Websites.
- Kroski, Ellyssa. (2006, February 20). Authority in the Age of the Amateur.
- Medical Library Association. (2008, July 25). A User’s Guide to Finding and Evaluating Health Information on the Web.
- Medline Plus. (2006, February 13). Medline Plus Guide to Healthy Web Surfing.
- National Cancer Institute. (2005, September 1). How to Evaluate Health Information on the Internet: Questions and Answers.
- National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (2008, August 27). 10 Things to Know About Evaluating Medical Resources on the Web.
- National Institute on Aging. (2005, August). Health Quackery: Spotting Health Scams.
- Schloman, Barbara F. (2002, December 16). Information Resources: Quality of Health Information on the Web: Where Are We Now?
- Winker, Margaret; Flanagin, Annette; Chi-Lum, Bonnie; White, John; Andrews, Karen; Kennett, Robert; DeAngelis, Catherine; Musacchio, Robert. (2008, August 1). Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet.
