Evaluation of the measurement properties of online health information quality assessment tools: A systematic review

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q1 NURSING

International Journal of Nursing Sciences Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijnss.2025.02.015

Yating Li , Hui Ouyang , Gan Lin , Yichao Peng , Jinghui Yao , Yun Chen

{"title":"Evaluation of the measurement properties of online health information quality assessment tools: A systematic review","authors":"Yating Li , Hui Ouyang , Gan Lin , Yichao Peng , Jinghui Yao , Yun Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnss.2025.02.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the measurement properties and methodological quality of instruments developed to evaluate the quality of online health information.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this study, a systematic search was conducted across a range of databases, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, China Science and Technology Journal (VIP), SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Scopus. The search period spanned from the inception of the databases to October 2023. Two researchers independently conducted the literature screening and data extraction. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. The measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN criteria. The modified Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to determine the quality grade.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 18 studies were included, and the measurement properties of 17 scales were assessed. Fifteen scales had content validity, three had structural validity, six had internal consistency, two had test-retest reliability, nine had interrater reliability, one had measurement error, six instruments had criterion validity, and three scales had hypotheses testing for construct validity; however, the evaluation of their methodological quality and measurement properties revealed deficiencies. Of these 17 scales, 15 were assigned a Level B recommendation, and two received a Level C recommendation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The Health Information Website Evaluation Tool (HIWET) can be temporarily used to evaluate the quality of health information on websites. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) can temporarily assess the quality of video-based health information. However, the effectiveness of both tools needs to be further verified.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37848,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Sciences","volume":"12 2","pages":"Pages 130-136"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352013225000274","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the measurement properties and methodological quality of instruments developed to evaluate the quality of online health information.

Methods

In this study, a systematic search was conducted across a range of databases, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, China Science and Technology Journal (VIP), SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Scopus. The search period spanned from the inception of the databases to October 2023. Two researchers independently conducted the literature screening and data extraction. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. The measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN criteria. The modified Grading, Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to determine the quality grade.

Results

A total of 18 studies were included, and the measurement properties of 17 scales were assessed. Fifteen scales had content validity, three had structural validity, six had internal consistency, two had test-retest reliability, nine had interrater reliability, one had measurement error, six instruments had criterion validity, and three scales had hypotheses testing for construct validity; however, the evaluation of their methodological quality and measurement properties revealed deficiencies. Of these 17 scales, 15 were assigned a Level B recommendation, and two received a Level C recommendation.

Conclusions

The Health Information Website Evaluation Tool (HIWET) can be temporarily used to evaluate the quality of health information on websites. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) can temporarily assess the quality of video-based health information. However, the effectiveness of both tools needs to be further verified.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在线健康信息质量评估工具测量特性的评估：系统回顾

目的评价在线健康信息质量评价工具的测量特性和方法学质量。方法系统检索中国知网（CNKI）、万方、中国科技期刊（VIP）、中国医学信息网（sinmed）、PubMed、Web of Science、CINAHL、Embase、Cochrane Library、PsycINFO和Scopus等数据库。搜索期从数据库建立到2023年10月。两位研究者独立进行文献筛选和数据提取。采用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准（COSMIN）偏倚风险检查表对纳入研究的方法学质量进行评估。使用COSMIN标准评估测量性能。采用改进的分级、建议、评估、发展和评价（GRADE）系统来确定质量等级。结果共纳入18项研究，评估了17种量表的测量性质。15个量表具有内容效度，3个量表具有结构效度，6个量表具有内部一致性，2个量表具有重测信度，9个量表具有内部信度，1个量表具有测量误差，6个量表具有标准效度，3个量表具有结构效度的假设检验；然而，对其方法质量和测量特性的评估显示出不足之处。在这17个量表中，15个被定为B级建议，2个被定为C级建议。结论健康信息网站评价工具（HIWET）可临时用于评价网站健康信息的质量。患者教育材料评估工具（PEMAT）可以临时评估基于视频的健康信息的质量。然而，这两种工具的有效性需要进一步验证。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Nursing Sciences Nursing-Nursing (all)

CiteScore

6.10

自引率

2.60%

发文量

408

审稿时长

25 days

期刊介绍： This journal aims to promote excellence in nursing and health care through the dissemination of the latest, evidence-based, peer-reviewed clinical information and original research, providing an international platform for exchanging knowledge, research findings and nursing practice experience. This journal covers a wide range of nursing topics such as advanced nursing practice, bio-psychosocial issues related to health, cultural perspectives, lifestyle change as a component of health promotion, chronic disease, including end-of-life care, family care giving. IJNSS publishes four issues per year in Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct. IJNSS intended readership includes practicing nurses in all spheres and at all levels who are committed to advancing practice and professional development on the basis of new knowledge and evidence; managers and senior members of the nursing; nurse educators and nursing students etc. IJNSS seeks to enrich insight into clinical need and the implications for nursing intervention and models of service delivery. Contributions are welcomed from other health professions on issues that have a direct impact on nursing practice.