Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The Internet is a major source of health-related information for parents of sick children despite concerns surrounding quality. For neurodevelopmental disorders, the websites of advocacy groups are a largely unexamined source of information. We evaluated treatment information posted on nine highly-trafficked advocacy websites for autism, cerebral palsy, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We found that the majority of claims about treatment safety and efficacy were unsubstantiated. Instead, a range of rhetorical strategies were used to imply scientific support. When peer-reviewed publications were cited, 20 % were incorrect or irrelevant. We call for new partnerships between advocacy and experts in developmental disorders to ensure better accuracy and higher transparency about how treatment information is selected and evidenced on advocacy websites.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2001). Counseling families who choose complementary and alternative medicine for their child with chronic illness or disability. Committee on children with disabilities. Pediatrics, 107(3), 598–601.
Boyer, C., Provost, M., & Baujard, V. (2002). Highlights of the 8th HON survey of health and medical Internet users. Health on the net foundation. Accessed 28 May, 2011. Available from www.hon.ch/Survey/8th_HON_results.html.
Clarke, C. E. (2008). A question of balance: The autism-vaccine controversy in the British and American elite press. Science Communication, 30, 77–107. CrossRef
D’Alessandro, D. M., Kingsley, P., & Johnson-West, J. (2001). The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the world wide web. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 155(7), 807–812. PubMed
Di Pietro, N. C., Whiteley, L., Illes, J. (2011). Treatments and services for neurodevelopmental disorders on advocacy websites: Information or evaluation? Neuroethics. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9102-z.
Doja, A., & Roberts, W. (2006). Immunizations and autism: A review of the literature. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 33(4), 341–346. PubMed
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004). The impact of completeness and web use motivation on the credibility of e-health information. Joint Commission, 54(2), 253–269.
Gilbert, G. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7(3), 113–122. CrossRef
Goldman, R. D., & Macpherson, A. (2006). Internet health information use and e-mail access by parents attending a paediatric emergency department. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 23, 345–348. CrossRef
Hess, D. (2007). Alternative pathways in science and industry: Activism, innovation and the environment in an era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kopelson, K. (2009). Writing patients’ wrongs: The rhetoric and reality of information age medicine. JAC, 29, 1–2. CrossRef
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Kunz, M. B., & Osborne, P. (2010). A preliminary examination of the readability of consumer pharmaceutical web pages. Burns, 5(2009), 33–41.
Lewis, T. (2006). Seeking health information on the Internet: Lifestyle choice or bad attack of cyberchondria? Media, Culture and Society, 28(4), 521–539. CrossRef
McClure, G. (1987). Readability formulas: Useful or useless (an interview with J. Peter Kincaid.). IEEE Transact Profession Commission, 30, 12–15.
Mooney, C. (2004). Blinded by science: How ‘balanced’ coverage lets the scientific fringe hijack reality. Columbia Journalism Review, 43(4), 26–35.
Perez, V. W. (2010). The rhetoric of science and statistics in claims of an autism epidemic. In A. Mukherjea (Ed.), Understanding Emerging Epidemics: Social and Political Approaches (Advances in Medical Sociology, Volume 11). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Petch, T. (2004). Content analysis of selected health information websites: Final report. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University.
Rossignol, D. A. (2009). Novel and emerging treatments for autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 21(4), 213–236. PubMed
Rowland, F. (2002). The peer review process. Learned Publishing, 15, 247–258. CrossRef
Simpson, N., & Roman, K. (2001). Complementary medicine use in children: Extent and reasons. A population-based study. British Journal of General Practice, 51(472), 914–916. PubMed
The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (2010). Accessed 25 September 2010. Available from http://nccam.nih.gov/.
van Woerkum, C. M. J. (2003). The Internet and primary care physicians: Coping with different expectations. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 77(4), 1016S–1018S. PubMed
Wainstein, B. K., Sterling-Levis, K., Baker, S. A., Taitz, J., & Brydon, M. (2006). Use of the Internet by parents of paediatric patients. Journal of Paediatric Child Health, 42(9), 528–532. CrossRef
Wikgren, M. (2001). Health discussions on the Internet: A study of knowledge communication through citations. Science Commission, 23, 305–317.
Zaidman-Zait, A., & Jamieson, J. R. (2007). Providing web-based support for families of infants and young children with established disabilities. Infant Young Child, 20, 11–25. CrossRef
- Treatments for Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Evidence, Advocacy, and the Internet
Nina C. Di Pietro
- Springer US