Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the characteristics of popular breast cancer related websites and whether more popular sites are of higher quality. DESIGN: The search engine Google was used to generate a list of websites about breast cancer. Google ranks search results by measures of link popularity---the number of links to a site from other sites. The top 200 sites returned in response to the query "breast cancer" were divided into "more popular" and "less popular" subgroups by three different measures of link popularity: Google rank and number of links reported independently by Google and by AltaVista (another search engine). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type and quality of content. RESULTS: More popular sites according to Google rank were more likely than less popular ones to contain information on ongoing clinical trials (27% v 12%, P=0.01 ), results of trials (12% v 3%, P=0.02), and opportunities for psychosocial adjustment (48% v 23%, P<0.01). These characteristics were also associated with higher number of links as reported by Google and AltaVista. More popular sites by number of linking sites were also more likely to provide updates on other breast cancer research, information on legislation and advocacy, and a message board service. Measures of quality such as display of authorship, attribution or references, currency of information, and disclosure did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Popularity of websites is associated with type rather than quality of content. Sites that include content correlated with popularity may best meet the public's desire for information about breast cancer.

EFFECTS OF INFORMATION DISPLAY ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLINICIAN MENTAL MODELS

Objective: To determine how a clinician’s background knowledge, their tasks, and displays of information interact to affect the clinician’s mental model. Design: Repeated Measure Nested Experimental Design Population, Sample, Setting: Populations were gastrointestinal/internal medicine physicians and nurses within the greater Houston area. A purposeful sample of 24 physicians and 24 nurses were studied in 2003. Methods: Subjects were randomized to two different displays of two different mock medical records; one that contained highlighted patient information and one that contained non-highlighted patient information. They were asked to read and summarize their understanding of the patients aloud. Propositional analysis was used to understand their comprehension of the patients. Findings: Different mental models were found between physicians and nurses given the same display of information. The information they shared was very minor compared to the variance in their mental models. There was additionally more variance within the nursing mental models than the physician mental models given different displays of the same information. Statistically, there was no interaction effect between the display of information and clinician type. Only clinician type could account for the differences in the clinician comprehension and thus their mental models of the cases. Conclusion: The factors that may explain the variance within and between the clinician models are clinician type, and only in the nursing group, the use of highlighting.