Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?
Authors: Michaël R. Laurent, Tim J. Vickers [edit item]
Citation: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 16 (4): 471-479. 2009 August.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M3059.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter? is a publication by Michaël R. Laurent, Tim J. Vickers.


[edit] Abstract

Objective: To determine the significance of the English Wikipedia as a source of online health information. Design: The authors measured Wikipedia's ranking on general Internet search engines by entering keywords from {MedlinePlus}, {NHS} Direct Online, and the National Organization of Rare Diseases as queries into search engine optimization software. We assessed whether article quality influenced this ranking. The authors tested whether traffic to Wikipedia coincided with epidemiological trends and news of emerging health concerns, and how it compares to {MedlinePlus.} Measurements: Cumulative incidence and average position of Wikipedia {(R)} compared to other Web sites among the first 20 results on general Internet search engines {(Google} {(R)}, Google {UK} {(R)}, Yahoo {(R)}, and {MSN} {(R))}, and page view statistics for selected Wikipedia articles and {MedlinePlus} pages. Results: Wikipedia ranked among the first ten results in 71-85\% of search engines and keywords tested. Wikipedia Surpassed {MedlinePlus} and {NHS} Direct Online (except for queries from the latter on Google {UK)}, and ranked higher with quality articles. Wikipedia ranked highest for rare diseases, although its incidence in several categories decreased. Page views increased parallel to the occurrence of 20 seasonal disorders and news of three emerging health concerns. Wikipedia articles were viewed more often than {MedlinePlus} Topic (p = 0.001) but for {MedlinePlus} Encyclopedia pages, the trend was not significant (p = 0.07-0.10). Conclusions: Based on its search engine ranking and page view statistics, the English Wikipedia is a prominent Source of online health information compared to the other online health information providers studied.

[edit] Research questions

"Objective: To determine the significance of the English Wikipedia as a source of online health information."

Research details

Topics: Comprehensiveness, Currency, Health information source, Ranking and popularity [edit item]
Domains: Health, Information systems [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Statistical analysis [edit item]
Data source: Websites [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Website [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Results: Wikipedia ranked among the first ten results in 71–85% of search engines and keywords tested. Wikipedia surpassed MedlinePlus and NHS Direct Online (except for queries from the latter on Google UK), and ranked higher with quality articles. Wikipedia ranked highest for rare diseases, although its incidence in several categories decreased. Page views increased parallel to the occurrence of 20 seasonal disorders and news of three emerging health concerns. Wikipedia articles were viewed more often than MedlinePlus Topic (p = 0.001) but for MedlinePlus Encyclopedia pages, the trend was not significant (p = 0.07–0.10).

Conclusions: Based on its search engine ranking and page view statistics, the English Wikipedia is a prominent source of online health information compared to the other online health information providers studied."

[edit] Comments


Further notes[edit]