Running head: CRITIQUE OF A MEDICAL WEBSITE

Part A: Summary

Is the author credible and who is the intended audience? What is the intended purpose of the site/media? The credibility of the author is questionable because an author is not clearly cited within the information given. Although the CDHF website is supervised by health professionals, the webpage does not reference any credible authors. However, a copyright signature at the bottom right corner of the website which adds to the credibility of the website. Considering that the website was revised in 2011, the author may have updated the information. Regarding the intended audience, it is clear from the title that this guide is targeted for the English speaking population who have access to the internet and who are patients with digestive health issues. The purpose of the webpage is for the reader to know critical information about pancreatitis such as symptoms, tests and diagnosis and how to cope with living with pancreatitis. Furthermore it can be looked upon as an educational tool for health promotion for people who want more information about their digestive condition

Does the content/information match the purpose and intended audience? To be an effective website it should be grounded in the characteristics, needs and perceptions of the intended audience (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2010). We can also observe the content-related dimensions explained in Content Analysis of Selected Health Information Websites (Action for Health, 2004).These are present in the document because the content goes into specifics about pancreatitis. The content of the webpage does match the purpose because it is important for patients to be educated with correct information. A

Running head: CRITIQUE OF A MEDICAL WEBSITE

study conducted by Berland et al. (2001) suggested that medical web sites often tend to require the author to use language at a high school level or greater reading ability. In this website, the language used by the author is appropriate which makes it easily readable material. In terms of quality of information, the website that I have chosen lacks any references in text as well as a bibliography section. Lastly, the site is not government affiliated and so the content does not need to go through layers of quality checks before being posted to the public. Consequently, the quality of the information may not be reliable and up to date for the public. The site is accessible free of charge, and is written in simple English that can be interpreted without the need for knowledge of medical terminology. Furthermore, navigation of the guide is simple allowing for individuals with low computer literacy to access and navigate the information.

What methods/approaches does the site/media use to deliver information to the public? Are they appropriate? Is the source (s) of the information communicated?

The site presents the information in a traditional written format, providing separate web pages for the audience to flip through with the usage of link. Furthermore, the site appropriately delivers the additional information such as a pancreatitis information sheet as a printable document in English that the reader can download making it easily accessible. However, a limitation that this website has is that the document is not available in French. The authors for the information however are not communicated at the end of the information sheet and there is no in text citations noted throughout the website either. This can be misleading to some readers because they are unaware of where the organization is getting their information from. According to the Content Analysis of Selected Health Information Websites identifies the use of the

Running head: CRITIQUE OF A MEDICAL WEBSITE

Internet as having the ability to reach large numbers of people rapidly (Action for Health, 2004, p. 11). The guide builds on this concept by making use of social media, providing the option of linking the guide to face book or twitter to enhance the dissemination of the information. This method supports the guides purpose of educating the general public on pancreatitis.

Is the information presented balanced (many points of view)? The information is presented in the point of view of the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation and is very concisely put on their website. However the website does provide a link to a section of personal stories of people living with various digestive problems which gives the other point of view making the website a balanced source of information for the general public. Another point to note is that there is an imbalance of pictures or diagrams for the digestive condition compared to all the writing on the website. In order to even the overall balance of the website some diagrams would have been useful.

Running head: CRITIQUE OF A MEDICAL WEBSITE

References Action for Health. (2004). Content analysis of selected health information websites final report. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/act4hlth/pub/working/Content%20Analysis.pdf

Berland, G.K., Elliot, M.N., Morales, L.S., Algazy, J.I., Kravitz, R.L., Broder, M.S. Kanouse, D.E. (2001). Health Information on the Internet. Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 (20), 2612-2621.

Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2010). Healthy People. Retrieved from http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/HTML/volume1/11HealthCom.htm

Running head: CRITIQUE OF A MEDICAL WEBSITE