Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Medical Library and Information Science, Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences,
2 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nowadays websites are among the most important information sources used by
most people. With the spread of websites, especially those related to health issues, the number of
their visitors also increases, more than half of which are about nutritional information. Therefore,
quality analysis of nutrition and diet therapy websites is of outmost importance. This study aims to
evaluate the quality of Persian nutrition and diet therapy websites.
METHODS: The current work is a survey study and uses an applied study method. The statistical
population consists of 51 Persian websites about nutrition and diet therapy and census method was
used in order to study them. Data gathering was done using a checklist and with direct visit to each
website. Descriptive and analytical statistics were used to analyse the gathered data with the help
of SPSS 21 software.
RESULTS: Findings showed that content (66.7%), organization (82.4%), user friendly
interfaces (52.9%) and total quality (70.6%) of most websites had a mediocre score while the design
score for most of the websites (70.6%) was acceptable also organizational websites had better design,
organization and quality compared to private websites. The three websites with the highest general
quality score were the websites of “Novel Diet Therapy,” “Behsite” and “Dr. BehdadiPour” (jointly)
and “Dr. Kermani” respectively. Also in the dimension of content the factors of goal, relevance and
credibility, in the dimension of design the factors of color, text and sound, pictures and videos, in the
dimension of organization the factors of stability and indexing and in the dimension of user friendliness
the factors of confidentiality, credibility and personalization had the highest scores.
CONCLUSION: The results showed that the design score was higher than other scores. Also the
general quality score of the websites was mediocre and was not desirable. Also websites didn’t have
suitable scores in every factor. Since most people search the internet for nutritional and diet therapy
information, the creators of these websites should endeavor to fix the shortcomings of their websites
and increase the quality of their websites in several different areas.
Keywords
seeking behavior of Arak university faculty members in using
the internet. Epistemology 2010; 3:81‑91.
2. Hayati Z, Dehghan L. A survey of acquaintance and application
of web information quality criteria: A case study of post‑graduate
students in Shiraz University. Inf Process Manag 2012; 27:1011‑31.
3. Moreno JM, Del Castillo JM, Porcel C, Herrera‑Viedma E.
A quality evaluation methodology for health‑related websites
based on a 2‑tuple fuzzy linguistic approach. Soft Comput 2010;
14:887‑97.
4. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health
information: How this affects the patient‑health professional
relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 63:24‑8.
5. Topaloglu H, Gumussoy CA, Bayraktaroglu AE, Calisir F. The
relative importance of usability and functionality factors for
e‑health web sites. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 2012;
23:336‑45.
6. Saber M. Overweight. In: Ebrahim S, Mohammadizadegan M,
Yazdanpanah MM, Saber M, Khabbaz N. The role of nutrition in
prevention of patients. Tehran: Kamale Danesh; 2001. p. 1‑30.
7. Lahiji MR. Nutrition and Cancer. Tehran: Shahr Ab; 1996.
8. Weaver JB 3rd, Thompson NJ, Weaver SS, Hopkins GL. Healthcare
non‑adherence decisions and internet health information. Comput
Hum Behav 2009;25:1373‑80.
9. Zahedi SH. Web quality assessment criteria and tools. Manage
Dev 2010; 4:5‑16.
10. KopcsoD, Pipino L, RyboltW. The Assessment of Website Quality.
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information
Quality; 2000. p. 97‑108. Available from: http://www.ssmvm030.
mit.edu/ICIQ/Documents/IQ%20Conference%202000/
Papers/TheAssessmentofWebsiteQuality.pdf. [Last accessed on
2013 Jun 30].
11. Heydari GH. Criteria for evaluating electronic information
resources with emphasis on websites. Inf Sci 2005; 20:17‑32.
12. Zhou Z. Evaluating websites using a practical quality model
2009. Available from: https://www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstream/
handle/2086/3422/ZihouZhou_Thesis‑Final.pdf. [Last accessed
on 2013 Jun 30].
13. Sutherland LA, Wildemuth B, Campbell MK, Haines PS.
Unraveling the web: An evaluation of the content quality,
usability, and readability of nutrition web sites. J Nutr Educ Behav
2005; 37:300‑5.
14. Parvizrad P, Mirzaee S. Health related websites evaluation. Health
Inf Manage 2006;3:5‑11.
15. Fathifar Z, Hosseini AF, Alibeig MR. Survey of Persian medical
and health websites qualification with Silberg criteria. Health
Adm 2007; 10:25‑30.
16. Moradi GH, Ahmadi M, Zohoor A, Ebadifardazar F, Saberi MR.
Evaluating of structure and content of webites of the educational
hospitals in Iran. Health Inf Manage 2007;4:175‑84.
17. Ashrafi‑Rizi H, Taheri B, Zahedi R, Shahrzadi L, Tazhibi M.
Quality of Persian addiction websites: A survey based on Silberg,
Discern and WQET instruments [research project]. Isfahan:
Isfahan University of Medical Science; 2012.
18. Ahn HS, Ku BS, Lee S. Systematic evaluation on the quantitative
and qualitative aspects of Korean nutrition education websites.
J Korean Diet Assoc 2008; 14:218‑28.
19. Borzekowski DL, Schenk S, Wilson JL, PeeblesR. e‑Ana and e‑Mia:
A content analysis of pro‑eating disorder Web sites. Am J Public
Health 2010; 100:1526‑34.
20. Hallingbye T, SerafiniM. Assessment of the quality of postherpetic
neuralgia treatment information on the Internet. J Pain 2011;
12:1149‑54.
21. Smith JT, Pate OL, Guss D, Lee JT, Chiodo CP, Bluman EM.
Internet information quality for ten common foot and ankle
diagnoses. Foot Ankle Surg 2012; 18:198‑202.
22. Lam CG, Roter DL, Cohen KJ. Survey of quality, readability, and
social reach of websites on osteosarcoma in adolescents. Patient
Educ Couns 2013; 90:82‑7.
23. Hasan L, Abuelrub E. Assessing the quality of web sites. Appl
Comput Inform 2011; 9:11‑29.
24. Ostry A, Young ML, Hughes M. The quality of nutritional
information available on popular websites: A content analysis.
Health Educ Res 2008; 23:648‑55.
25. Yan YY. Online health information seeking behavior in Hong
Kong: An exploratory study. J Med Syst 2010; 34:147‑53.
)