IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v67y2016i2p333-349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of drug information on consumer drug review sites versus authoritative health information websites

Author

Listed:
  • Shu Wen Chew
  • Christopher S.G. Khoo

Abstract

type="main"> Large amounts of health-related information of different types are available on the web. In addition to authoritative health information sites maintained by government health departments and healthcare institutions, there are many social media sites carrying user-contributed information. This study sought to identify the types of drug information available on consumer-contributed drug review sites when compared with authoritative drug information websites. Content analysis was performed on the information available for nine drugs on three authoritative sites (RxList, eMC, and PDRhealth) as well as three drug review sites (WebMD, RateADrug, and PatientsLikeMe). The types of information found on authoritative sites but rarely on drug review sites include pharmacology, special population considerations, contraindications, and drug interactions. Types of information found only on drug review sites include drug efficacy, drug resistance experienced by long-term users, cost of drug in relation to insurance coverage, availability of generic forms, comparison with other similar drugs and with other versions of the drug, difficulty in using the drug, and advice on coping with side effects. Drug efficacy ratings by users were found to be different across the three sites. Side effects were vividly described in context, with user assessment of severity based on discomfort and effect on their lives.

Suggested Citation

  • Shu Wen Chew & Christopher S.G. Khoo, 2016. "Comparison of drug information on consumer drug review sites versus authoritative health information websites," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(2), pages 333-349, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:67:y:2016:i:2:p:333-349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/asi.23390
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:67:y:2016:i:2:p:333-349. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.