Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this research is to measure the validity and the adoption of a new web page assessment tool called SPAT (Site, Publisher, Audience, Timeliness).Design/methodology/approachA convenience sample of 37 Certified Diabetes Educators (CDEs) participated in an evaluation of the web page assessment tool SPAT. Four web pages with diabetes content were selected for a pre‐ and post‐test evaluation. A follow‐up questionnaire measured adoption of the SPAT tool.FindingsThere was a significant difference when using the mnemonic SPAT to evaluate the site, publisher and timeliness of a web page. Using SPAT to evaluate the audience of a web page also showed an improvement. While there was an increase in reviewing the text of a web page for biases after the SPAT intervention, it was not significant. The CDEs easily utilized SPAT with the diabetes content web pages and their successful manipulation of the SPAT tool demonstrated face validity. After learning of SPAT, responses to the follow‐up questionnaire revealed adoption of the tool by CDEs.Practical implicationsUse of SPAT may enable health care providers to systematically evaluate health‐related web page content.Originality/valueSPAT is a novel tool that reinforces a user to practice basic literacy concepts. The value of SPAT is that it is a people centered tool that may easily be used by anyone to evaluate web pages.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems
Reference27 articles.
1. American Association of Diabetes Educators (2005), Diabetes Education – Overview, American Association of Diabetes Educators, Chicago, IL.
2. Bedell, S.E., Petersen, L.E. and Agrawal, A. (2004), “A systematic critique of diabetes on the World Wide Web for patients and their physicians”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 73, p. 687.
3. Bernstam, E.V., Shelton, D.M., Walji, M. and Meric‐Bernstam, F. (2005), “Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use?”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 74, pp. 13‐19.
4. Charnock, D., Shepperd, S., Needham, G. and Gann, R. (1999), “DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices”, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 53 No. 9902, p. 105.
5. Cullen, R. (2005), “Empowering patients through health information literacy training”, Library Review, Vol. 54, pp. 231‐44.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献