Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Howitt, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wells, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Howitt, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wells, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 19, No. 5, 547-556
© Oxford University Press 2002


Information Technology

An evaluation of general practice websites in the UK

Alistair Howitt, Sarah Clementa, Simon de Lusignanb, Krish Thirub,e, Daryl Goodwinc and Sally Wellsd

Warders Medical Centre, East Street, Tonbridge, Kent TN9 1LA,
a Department of Psychiatry and
b Department of General Practice, St George’s Hospital Medical School, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE,
c 180 Sandgate Road, Folkestone, Kent CT20 2HN,
d Woodbridge Hill Surgery, Guildford, Surrey GU2 6AT and

Dr AJ Howitt, Warders Medical Centre, East Street, Tonbridge, Kent TN9 1LA, UK; E-mail: ajhowitt{at}warders.co.uk

Background. General practice websites are an emerging phenomenon, but there have been few critical evaluations of their content. Previously developed rating instruments to assess medical websites have been criticized for failing to report their reliability and validity.

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to develop a rating instrument for assessing UK general practice websites, and then to evaluate them critically.

Methods. The STaRNet Website Assessment Tool (SWAT) was developed listing criteria that general practice websites may meet, which was then used to evaluate a random sample of websites drawn from an electronic database. A second assessor rated a subsample of the sites to assess the tool’s inter-rater reliability. The setting was an information technology group of a general practice research network using a random sample of 108 websites identified from the database. The main outcome measures were identification of rating criteria and frequency counts from the website rating instrument.

Results. Ninety (93.3%) sites were accessible, of which 84 were UK general practice websites. Criteria most frequently met were those describing the scope of the website and their functionality. Apart from e-mail to practices, criteria related to electronic communication were rarely met. Criteria relating to the quality of information were least often met. Inter-rater reliability kappa values for the items in the tool ranged from –0.06 to 1.0 (mean 0.59). Values were >0.6 for 15 out of 25 criteria assessed in 40 sites which were rated by two assessors.

Conclusions. General practice websites offer a wide range of information. They are technically satisfactory, but do not exploit fully the potential for electronic doctor–patient communication. The quality of information they provide is poor. The instrument may be developed as a template for general practices producing or revising their own websites.

Keywords. Communication, family practice, information services, Internet, medical informatics.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
K. Schmidt and E. Ernst
Assessing websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer
Ann. Onc., May 1, 2004; 15(5): 733 - 742.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.