In This Issue:

• Thank You
  
  
• Director's CorNER
  
  
• Future Leaders
  
  
• PubMed Particulars
  
  
• LinkOut
  
  
• New Library Groups
  
  
• Ill Advised
  
  
• Know Tech
  
  
• Tres Chic
  
  
• INside OUTreach
  
  
• Links
  
  

On Evaluation, Tools, and Criteria

Librarians have been teaching skills in evaluating Health Information resources for about as long as health information resources have been around. The skills basically have users examine the resource or websites using key concepts and often follow a question-based approach (i.e. Does the site readily display its' sponsors?). Many evaluation initiatives have cropped up to aid the user or the content provider. These initiatives are not meant to replace the evaluation skills users ought to be practicing. While the development of some of these initiatives and tools can help users, it's becoming more apparent that though some of these initiatives will come and go, users will always need these evaluation skills.

Some of the initiatives:

Health on the Net began in 1996 and is an older initiative. Most librarians or end user educators have probably used the HON site as a way of teaching evaluation skills and demo'ing some of the sites with the HON code. Many of us know the principle behind HON is self-regualtion-the information provider carries the HON image pledging to abide by its standards. There is an application and review process that registers the site with the HON foundation. Key principles for HON are:

URAC is the American Accreditation Healthcare Commission and is a membership organization composed of employers, consumers, partitioners, and managed care companies. The organization establishes standards and grants accreditation in areas like case management, claims processing, utility management and worker's compensation. The website accreditation process was introduced last year. Websites pay a fee for being continually reviewed and consulted on their practices. The fees are quite substantial and currently 13 sites have undergone and passed the accreditation process. These sites include a few health care associations (Health Insurance Association of America), and information providers: (adam.com; InteliHealth; LaurusHealth). The accreditation process involves website reviews, site visits, and ongoing consultations. The 52-point standards revolve around concepts like:

One of the lists I subscribe to (lurk on, to be more accurate) is the medwebmasters list is composed of health website developers and medical professionals. There's been good discussion about these evaluation resources. HON has come into some criticism for not having more stringent enforcement of its standards. (See HONcode: jeers). There has also been some discussion of HON's funding troubles.

Although the cost may be prohibitive for many website developers, URAC is responding to a need for third party monitoring of health information webistes. While the HON principles and standard setting approach has served users and trainers well, the value of URAC's accreditation program won't be seen for a while.

The URAC initiative has spawned discussion of the need to educate consumers about how to self-evaluate websites. Members on the medwebmasters list began posting the links to sites on evaluating websites. Some of these evaluation resources are from libraries and may be familiar to those of us teaching evaluation skills. Again, these vary in the question and concepts, but all of them serve to get users to better examine websites.

Because I've taught these skills in my different jobs, I used to think this part of training would soon not be necessary. Yes, that was naive. Not suprisingly many of the case managers, visiting and home nurses, and other health professionals I've presented are unfamiliar with these types of evaluation resources. Suprisingly, many of the public library websites I've visited do not offer these types of guides in their health or 'introduction to the Internet' pages.

Some Internet trainers use the simple and useful Who What and When scheme of questions to show that critical thinking about websites can be an easy thing. The criteria I like to use in presenting evaluation skills are by the Health Summit Working Group (HSWG). The Health Summit Working Group was sponsored by Mitretek Systems, a health care non-profit, and also funded by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.

The Working Group was a panel of health and information experts who developed criteria based on eight concepts. The criteria were developed in conjunction with a scoring tool that is no longer supported on the Mitretek website. I like the HSWG criteria because the concepts are well described and its three versions go from very detailed to a quick run-down. Below is the brief version of the criteria but the Mitretek site includes a longer Policy paper and a more detailed White Paper. Below is a capsule version of their criteria.

**For an extensive treatment of many of the Quality Standards see:

Ahmad Risk, Joan Dzenowagis. Review of Internet Health Information Quality Initiatives Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2001, December 26; 3 (4): e28 (http://www.jmir.org/2001/4/e28/index.htm URL not available on 2/11/02)

Javier Crespo, Consumer Health Information Coordinator

Upcoming events: SAVE THE DATES!!

Friday, March 29, 2002

Rutland Regional Medical Center and Vermont Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) present a day-long workshop on health literacy problems and solutions:

Write It/Say It Easy to Understand: Health Literacy Training for Professionals. Sue Stableford, MPH, MSB, Director of Maine AHEC Health Literacy Center and the Jane Root Summer Institute, is guest speaker.

This is a hands-on workshop and participants will learn to use plain language communication tools to help improve quality of care. Special issues in elderly clientele will be addressed. The workshop is Friday, March 29, at the Rutland Country Club. Registration is limited, fee is $50 and includes lunch and materials. Contact Claire LaForce, Health Sciences Library, Rutland Regional Medical Center at 802-747-3777 with questions.

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

Consumer Health Information Conference: Networking and Technology, to be held at the Publick House in Sturbridge, MA. This one day conference is designed to foster cooperation between public health departments, public libraries, health sciences libraries, major voluntary health organizations, and health educators. It will help these health professionals use authoritative Internet resources and referral systems and to plan new projects to effectively answer consumer health questions.

Plan to attend! Hear how a health sciences librarian developed a cooperative project between libraries, health agencies, and associations to meet the health information needs of an urban community. Listen to a medical doctor's perspective on a current public health issue and the public's need for accurate information. Hear about the experiences of a patient and her spouse when they searched for information they needed to make informed medical decisions. Learn about the tools you'll need, such as Internet resources and grant writing skills, to develop a cooperative consumer health information project that meets the unique needs of your community.

Public health officials, health educators, public librarians, health sciences librarians, and local chapters of major health organizations are invited to attend. This conference is open to all of these groups in the six New England States.

Sponsored by the Lyman Maynard Stowe Library, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington CT, the conference is funded by the National Library of Medicine, National Network of Libraries of Medicine - New England Region.

Additional details and registration information will be sent out soon. If you have questions, please contact: Alberta L. Richetelle, Program Director, Healthnet:Connecticut Consumer Health Information Network, Lyman Maynard Stowe Library, University of Connecticut Health Center; 860/679-4055;email: richetelle@nso.uchc.edu.