This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

Posted: **Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:50 pm**

By the way, congratulations Art!

This from the Sept. 2007 "Health Informatics Journal" article "Assessing the quality of websites providing information on multiple sclerosis: evaluating tools and comparing sites"

IQ Tool
One quarter of the websites scored zero according to the IQ Tool because they either did
not disclose authorship or did not provide contact details for the author. No website scored
perfect marks of 100, but two websites, Boston Cure and All About Multiple Sclerosis,
were just one ‘yes’ response short, with both only failing to score top marks because one
of the questions, about the security of personal information, was not applicable. The rest
of the scores ranged from 40.2 to 88.4 per cent.

Bob

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:36 am**

Hi Lyon,
I can't seem to get to the full paper from the abstract but it would be great if you could let us all know how ThisIsMS faired if it was included in the analysis.

Thanks, NHE

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:28 am**

Hi NHE,
I tried to copy and paste the graph of their results, but it's a pdf file and the format wouldn't transfer correctly.

I didn't see "thisisms" mentioned at all, not even among the sites considered.

When you look at the list of references the authors used, thisisms wasn't among them, and without inferring any negativity towards thisisms, it seems there might be good reason. The foremost reason for thisisms not even being a consideration (it seems to me) probably regards membership in thisisms not really booming until the last year or so, it seems that the real work in this study was done before then.

Additionally, when you look at the latter part of the references, it seems they've listed the websites which were among the considerations of the authors. I'm not familiar with all those sites but I got the idea they were looking for sites which specifically post medically accepted information about MS.

It seems the whole idea of thisisms is that most members are already familiar with the "medically accepted" opinions and use the thisisms site to determine whether they agree with the medically accepted opinions and/or to discuss alternative outlooks. I don't think anyone here WANTS the medically accepted theories posted on this site so maybe thisisms will never be a consideration for this type of study.

I'm at work and admittedly don't have my reading glasses, I don't see thisisms listed anywhere below but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Bob

References
1 Hepworth M, Harrison J. A survey of the information needs of people with multiple sclerosis.
Health Informatics Journal 2004; 10 (1); 49–69.
2 Wollin J, Dale H, Spenser N, Walsh A. What do people with newly diagnosed MS (and their families
and friends) need to know? International Journal of MS Care 2000; 2 (3). http://www.mscare.com,

August 2004.
1
3 Croft D R, Peterson M W. An evaluation of quality and content of asthma education on the world

wide web. Chest Journal 2002; 121 (4); 1301–7. http://www.chestjournal.org, 10
August 2004.
4 Bedell S, Agrawal A, Petersen L E. A systematic critique of diabetes on the world wide web for
patients and their physicians. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2004; 73 (9); 687–94.5 Nguyen H Q, Carrieri-Kohlman V, Rankin S H, Slaughter R, Stulbarg M S. Internet-based patient
education and support interventions: a review of evaluation studies and directions for future research.
Computers in Biology and Medicine 2004; 34; 95–112.
6 Rozmovits L, Ziebland S. What do patients with prostate or breast cancer want from an Internet site?
A qualitative study of information needs. Patient Education and Counselling 2004; 53; 57–64.
7 Dixon-Woods M. Writing wrongs? An analysis of published discourses about the use of patient
information lea? ets. Social Science & Medicine 2001; 52; 1417–32.
8 Seidman J J, Steinwachs D, Rubin H R. Conceptual framework for a new tool for evaluating the
quality of diabetes consumer-information websites. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2003; 5 (4).
http://www.jmir.org/2003/4/e29/index.htm, 17 June 2004.
9 Schmidt K, Ernst E. Assessing websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer. Annals
of Oncology 2004; 15; 733–42.
10 Eysenbach G, Kohler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world
wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British
Medical Journal 2002; 324; 573–6.
11 Purcell G P, Wilson P, Delamothe T. The quality of health information on the internet. British Medical
Journal 2002; 324; 557–8.
12 Eysenbach G. Towards ethical guidelines for e-health. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2000; 2
(1). http://www.jmir.org/2000/1/e7/, 31 July 2004.
13 Kim P, Thomas R E, Deering M J, Max? eld A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites:
review. British Medical Journal 1999; 318; 647–9.
14 Childs S. Judging the quality of internet-based health information. Performance Measurement and
Metrics 2005; 6 (2); 80–96.
15 Ademiluyi G, Rees C E, Sheard C E. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the
quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Education and Counselling 2003; 50; 151–5.
16 Bouchier H, Bath P A. Evaluation of websites that provide information on Alzheimer’s disease. Health
Informatics Journal 2003; 9 (1); 17–32.
17 Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E R. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for
consumers on the World Wide Web: systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association
2002; 287 (20); 2691–700.
18 Seidman J J, Steinwachs D, Rubin H R. Design and testing of a tool for evaluating the quality of
diabetes consumer-information web sites. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2003; 5 (4).
http://www.jmir.org/2003/4/e30/index.htm, 17 June 2004.
19 Coleman B. Producing an information lea? et to help patients access high quality drug information on
the Internet: a local study. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2003; 20; 160–71.
20 Bath P A, Bouchier H. Development and application of a tool designed to evaluate web-sites providing
information on Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Information Science 2003; 29 (4); 279–97.
21 Wilson P. How to ? nd the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of
health information on the Internet. British Medical Journal 2000; 324; 598–602.
22 Health Summit Working Group. Information Quality Tool. http://hitiweb.mitretek.org/iq/iqmain.asp,
6 July 2004.
23 Centre for Health Information Quality. Hi Quality Guidelines. www.hfht.org/hiquality/guidelines.htm,
6 July 2004.
24 Health On the Net Foundation. HON Code of Conduct. http://www.hon.ch/HON code/HONcode_
check.html, 6 July 2004.

July 2004.
25 Action MS. http://www.actionms.co.uk, 12

26 All About MS. http://www.mult-sclerosis.org, 12July 2004.

27 Betaseron. http://www.betaseron.com, 12July 2004.

28 Boston Cure. http://www.bostoncure.org/, 12July 2004.
29 Chilterns MS Centre. http://www.web-shack.com/cmsc, 12 July 2004.

30 CLAMS. http://www.clams.org, 12
July 2004.

31 Direct MS. http://www.direct-ms.com, 12July 2004.

32 Friends with MS. http://www.friendswithms.com, 12July 2004.

33 James S. Huggins. http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/ms_1/mul ... erosis.htm, 12July 2004.

34 Jean Sumption. http://www.imssf.com, 12
July 2004.35 Jooly’s Joint. http://www.mswebpals.org, 12July 2004.

36 Mayo Clinic. http://www.mayoclinic.com, 12July 2004.

37 MS Active Source. http://www.msactivesource.com, 12July 2004.

38 MS Awareness Foundation. http://www.msawarenessfoundation.org, 12July 2004.
39 MS Central Support. http://www.mscentralsupport.com, 12 July 2004.

July 2004.
40 MS Gateway. http://www.ms-gateway.com, 12

41 MS International Federation. http://www.msif.org, 12July 2004.

42 MS Lifelines. http://www.mslifelines.com, 12July 2004.

43 MS National Research Institute. http://www.ms-national-research.org, 12July 2004.

44 MS Net. http://www.msnet.org, 12July 2004.

45 MS Network. http://www.ms-network.com, 12July 2004.

July 2004.
46 MS Only. http://www.msonly.com, 12

47 MS Outreach. http://www.msoutreach.com, 12July 2004.

48 MS Resource Centre. http://www.msrc.co.uk, 12
July 2004.

July 2004.
49 MS Society Australia. http://www.msaustralia.org.au, 12

50 MS Society Canada. http://www.mssociety.ca, 12
July 2004.

July 2004.
51 MS Society UK. http://www.mssociety.org.uk, 12

52 MS Society USA. http://www.msaa.com, 12July 2004.

53 MS South Africa. http://www.kznms.org.za, 12
July 2004.

54 MS Sucks. http://www.mssucks.com, 12July 2004.

55 MS Watch. http://www.mswatch.com, 12July 2004.

56 Multiple Sclerosis.com. http:// www.multiplesclerosis.com, 12July 2004.

57 Multiple Sclerosis Foundation (MSF). http://www.msfacts.org, 12July 2004.

58 National MS Society. http:// www.nationalmssociety.org, 12July 2004.
59 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_
medical/disorders/multiple_sclerosis.htm, 12 July 2004.

60 Pennsylvania Neurological Associates. http:// www.pneuro.com, 12July 2004.

61 T. H. Juland’s MS Pages. http://www.albany.net, 12July 2004.

62 Understanding MS. http://www.understandingms.com, 12July 2004.
63 Utah University. http://medstat.med.utah.edu/kw/ms, 12 July 2004.
64 Vernon Society. http://members.shaw.ca/vernon-ms-soc, 12 July 2004.
65 Bland J M, Altman D G. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal 1997; 314; 572.

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:48 am**

nope thisisms isn't in there, but i have a full text pdf copy if anyone wants one. and yea i'd say it's definitely missing some interesting sites but i haven't read it to look at how they scoped the resources being considered.

i also took a screen shot of the table but i forgot you need a URL for adding images to these posts so never mind

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:08 am**

jimmylegs wrote: i also took a screen shot of the table but i forgot you need a URL for adding images to these posts so never mind

Hi jimmy, you should teach me how to do screen shots.

If you have the time you could add that screen shot to your photobucket site so that it has a url

I saw the "Greek Goddess" pic, so I know you can do it.

Bob

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:01 pm**

Lyon wrote:I tried to copy and paste the graph of their results, but it's a pdf file and the format wouldn't transfer correctly.

In my version of Adobe Acrobat, I hold down the text select tool button which brings up other options and then select the 'Graphics Select Tool'. Next, drag a graphics select box around the image in the pdf. Right click on it and choose copy.

As an alternative, use 'Alt+Print Screen' to copy the entire window on a windows system. This copies an image of the window to the clipboard which can then be pasted into an image editing application such as Photoshop, Gimp, PaintShopPro, or whatever and edited. Saving the file in the gif format (or as a 16 color png file if the image is fairly plain) will help to reduce the size compared to a jpg file and will facilitate transfers. Note, if you want the whole desktop and not just the current window then just use 'Print Screen' by itself.

NHE

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:27 pm**

lol lyon i so do not remember how i put the greek goddess up. will have to revisit the post and check out the url.

ya what nhe describes for non-acrobat scenarios (alt-printscreen) is how i screenshot. i hit print screen and then ctrl-v it into paint - i'm usually on a pretty low-tech machine these days. then you can play with it to resize, recentre, and trim as needed. then yes save as jpg if/when reduced file size is best.

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:37 pm**

re img urls: oooooooooh i let that site's dns registration lapse a long time ago. no more greek goddess, so sad. suppose i could blog the screen shot but that whole idea smacks of effort. think i'll stick with the lazy theme for this week

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:02 pm**

Yeah, Thanks a lot for the help guys

That was harder than crap and the ordeal probably scarred me for life!

NHE must have the nice version of acrobat because I had to sluff my way through all those steps which should have required a college degree.
Bob

Posted: **Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:02 pm**

Wow.... Thisisms should have been at the top of this list, and yet it isn't even on it. Is this ranking sponsored by Big Pharma?

Posted: **Sun Sep 09, 2007 4:28 am**

Good question Brock, I hadn't thought to look.

They were looking for easily available stockpiles of "medically accepted" information and thisisms seems to be a place for people to discuss ALL of the options.
Bob

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Grant and Canada Research Chairs Program Grant to the first author.

Posted: **Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:54 am**

righty-o then, who's writing the letter to the editor in response?

Posted: **Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:59 am**

jimmylegs wrote:righty-o then, who's writing the letter to the editor in response?

But I don't see this as a slight to thisisms.

Their study was titled "Assessing the quality of websites providing information on multiple sclerosis" and I'm not sure thisisms was intended to "provide" information, but instead provides a forum to discuss MS.

What they were looking for were places which provided "medically accepted" information about MS. I think you have to admit that not only isn't there a stockpile of medically accepted MS information on this site (nor was it ever intended), but very people at this site follow the "straight and narrow".

I'm not sure what there is to complain to the editor about...that thisisms wasn't mentioned in a study which wasn't looking for this type of website?

Bob

Posted: **Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:54 pm**

hmm, personally i viewed a letter to the editor as an opportunity to elaborate, but if it would automatically be seen as something negative, maybe not.

Posted: **Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:02 pm**

Hi jimmy, I jumped to the conclusion that it would be kind of negative. I don't mean to put words in the mouths of the people involved in the study and it would be interesting to hear their response.
Bob

This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

CONGRATULATIONS ART!

CONGRATULATIONS ART!

Re: CONGRATULATIONS ART!

Re: CONGRATULATIONS ART!