Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (한국임상약학회지)

Korean College Of Clinical Pharmacy (한국임상약학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Evaluation of Popular Search Websites on Search Results and Reliability of Health Information between Korea and United States

한국과 미국의 대중적인 검색 사이트 간 건강정보 검색결과 및 신뢰성 비교 평가

  • Yoojung Choi (College of Pharmacy, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kwanghyeon Jung (College of Pharmacy, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jonghyun Jeong (College of Pharmacy, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hyunwoo Chae (College of Pharmacy, Seoul National University) ;
  • Ju-Yeun Lee (College of Pharmacy, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jaekyu Shin (Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California-San Francisco)
  • 최유정 (서울대학교 약학대학) ;
  • 정광현 (서울대학교 약학대학) ;
  • 정종현 (서울대학교 약학대학) ;
  • 채현우 (서울대학교 약학대학) ;
  • 이주연 (서울대학교 약학대학) ;
  • 신재규 (캘리포니아 주립 대학교)
  • Received : 2024.05.27
  • Accepted : 2024.09.03
  • Published : 2024.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Health information should be accurate and of high quality. While search websites are widely used to obtain health information, search results can vary depending on the availability of information in each language and the algorithms of search websites. We compared the search results and their reliability on popular search websites in Korea and the United States. Methods: Using the most popular search websites in Korea (A) and the US (B), with B divided into KR and US domains, we evaluated the search results for three diseases (hypertension, diabetes, osteoporosis) and two medications (Lipitor, Norvasc). We compared the proportion of paid ads and website categories, as well as quality and accuracy using a validated scoring tool. Results: Search website A had a high proportion of paid ads (40.3%), compared to B KR (4.3%) and B US (0%). B US had the highest proportion of reliable websites (58.1%), followed by B KR (52.9%) and A (14.6%). B US had the highest median quality score (25) while A had the lowest (14). Additionally, B US had the highest accuracy (95%), followed by B KR (87.7%) and A (52.2%). Conclusions: Our data suggest that health information provided by popular search website in Korea is inaccurate and of low quality compared with that provided by its counterpart in the US. Users should prioritize credible websites, be cautious of ads, and seek professional advice. In addition, joint efforts from the government, search websites, and healthcare professionals are needed to provide accurate online health information.

Keywords

References

  1. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: patient perceptions. Arch Intern Med 2003;163(14):1727-34. 
  2. Johnson SB, Park HS, Gross CP, Yu JB. Use of alternative medicine for cancer and its impact on survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018;110(1):121-4. 
  3. Crawford K. National survey reveals surprising number of Americans believe alternative therapies can cure cancer. Available from https://society.asco.org/about-asco/press-center/news-releases/national-survey-reveals-surprising-number-americans-believe. Accessed April 11, 2024. 
  4. Moretti FA, Oliveira VE, Silvia EMK. Access to health information on the internet: A public health issue? Rev Assoc Med Bras 2012;58:650-8. 
  5. Choi S, Kim H, Hwang J, et al. A Study for Improving Health Literacy. Available from https://repository.kihasa.re.kr/handle/201002/37301. Accessed April 11, 2024. 
  6. Okan O, Bollweg TM, Berens EM, et al. Coronavirus-related health literacy: a cross-sectional study in adults during the COVID-19 infodemic in Germany. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(15):5503. 
  7. Google Search Central. In-depth guide to how Google search works. Available from https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/how-search-works. Accessed July 27, 2024. 
  8. Hingoro MA, Nawaz H. A comparative analysis of search engine ranking algorithms. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering 2021;10(2):1-6. 
  9. Glick M, Richards G, Sapozhnikov M, Seabright P. How does ranking affect user choice in online search? Rev Ind Organ 2014;45(1):99-119. 
  10. Bailyn E. Google click-through rates (CTRs) by ranking position in 2024. Available from https://firstpagesage.com/reports/google-clickthrough-rates-ctrs-by-ranking-position/. Accessed April 11, 2024. 
  11. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor-let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997;277(15):1244-5. 
  12. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53(2):105-11. 
  13. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 1998;28(5):603-10. 
  14. Robillard JM, Jun JH, Lai JA, Feng TL. The QUEST for quality online health information: validation of a short quantitative tool. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2018;18:1-15. 
  15. Storino A, Castillo-Angeles M, Watkins AA, et al. Assessing the accuracy and readability of online health information for patients with pancreatic cancer. JAMA surgery 2016;151(9):831-7. 
  16. Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, McCarthy MM, Roberts TR, Daluiski A. Does the quality, accuracy, and readability of information about lateral epicondylitis on the internet vary with the search term used? Hand (N Y) 2012;7(4):420-5. 
  17. Chang MY, Kim JW, Rhee CS. The quality of health information on allergic rhinitis, rhinitis, and sinusitis available on the internet. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2015;7(2):141-7. 
  18. Hong SW, Kang JH, Park JH, Park HJ, Kim E. Quality and readability of online information on hand osteoarthritis. Health Informatics J 2023;29(1):14604582231169297. 
  19. Jo JH, Kim JR, Kim MJ, Chung JW, Park JW. Quality and readability of online information on dental treatment for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea. Ann Coloproctol 2020;133:104000. 
  20. Son DK, Choi HS, Lee DW, Lee SJ, Lee JS, Lee YS. Quality evaluation of websites providing colorectal cancer information using the DISCERN instrument. Ann Coloproctol 2005;21(4):247-54. 
  21. BizSpring Inc., Internet trend 2023. Available from http://www.internettrend.co.kr/trendForward.tsp. Accessed June 26, 2023. 
  22. Oh Y, Cho Y. Exploring the limitations and development directions of online health information utilization: focused on expert knowledge analysis using the framework of ignorance. Health and Social Welfare Review 2019;39(2):358-93. 
  23. Jang J, Kim J, Lim D, Kweon S. Improving health information: focusing on the national health information online service. Public Health Wkly Rep 2024;17(1):17-29. 
  24. Google. Search quality evaluator guidelines 2024. Available from https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/11/search-quality-rater-guidelines-update. ccessed April 11, 2024. 
  25. Korean Society of Medical Oncology. Limitations of digital information search for cancer patients. Available from https://ksmo.or.kr/EditorUpload/doc/PR/%EB%B0%9C%ED%91%9C1.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2024. 
  26. Martin-Facklam M, Kostrzewa M, Schubert F, Gasse C, Haefeli WE. Quality markers of drug information on the internet: an evaluation of sites about St. John's wort. Am J Med 2002;113(9):740-5. 
  27. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Standard for determining unfair advertising of foods, etc. Available from https://www.mfds.go.kr/brd/m_1060/view.do?seq=14584&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=&srchTp=&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&multi_itm_seq=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&page=31. Accessed April 11, 2024. 
  28. Park H, Kang E, Kim Y, Ju H. Analysis of the spread of misinformation about lung cancer on YouTube: based on source of information. Korean J Fam Pract 2023;13(3):152-8. 
  29. Korea Health Promotion Institute. Guidelines for health information posts. Available from https://www.khepi.or.kr/board/view?linkId=1006661&menuId=MENU00907. Accessed April 11, 2024.