Instrumentos para evaluar la calidad de la información en sitios web de salud: análisis crítico
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37711/rpcs.2026.8.2.6Palabras clave:
Información y Comunicación en Salud, Gestión de la Información en Salud, Información de Salud al Consumidor, Alfabetización en Salud, Educación en Salud, InternetResumen
The Internet has become an important source of health information for the general population; however, the lack of regulation and the rapid dissemination of content facilitate access to low-quality information. In response to this problem, instruments have been developed to assess the quality, reliability, and transparency of content available on health websites. This critical review aimed to identify, describe, and analyze the instruments most commonly used for this purpose. A search was conducted in PubMed, SciELO, and Google Scholar, with no restrictions on language or year of publication, including studies that described, applied, or evaluated these tools. Among the instruments identified, notable examples include HONcode, JAMA Benchmarks, and DISCERN, each focusing on ethical, editorial, or information quality aspects. Although these instruments provide a useful basis for selecting reliable digital resources, they have limitations in assessing scientific accuracy and evaluating the quality of content disseminated through social media or generated by artificial intelligence.
Descargas
Referencias
1. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Carta de Ottawa para la Promoción de la Salud. [Internet]. Ginebra: OMS; 1986 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026]. Disponible en: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/349652/WHO-EURO-1986-4044-43803-61677-eng.pdf
2. Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. [Internet]. 2000 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];15(3):259-67. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/15.3.259
3. Smith BJ, Ferguson C, McKenzie J, Bauman A, Vita P. Impacts from repeated mass media campaigns to promote sun protection in Australia. Health Promot Int. [Internet]. 2002 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];17(1):51-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/17.1.51
4. Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ. [Internet]. 2002 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];324(7337):573-7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573
5. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. BMJ. [Internet]. 1998 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];317(7171):1496-502. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1496
6. Chou WY, Hunt YM, Beckjord EB, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. J Med Internet Res. [Internet]. 2009 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];11(4):e48. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1249
7. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res. [Internet]. 2013 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];15(4):e85. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1933
8. Ventola CL. Social media and health care professionals: benefits, risks, and best practices. P&T. [Internet]. 2014 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];39(7):491-520. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25083128/
9. Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health [Internet]. 2020 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];41:433-51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127
10. Gagliardi A, Jadad AR. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ. [Internet]. 2002 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];324(7337):569-73. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.569
11. Boyer C, Selby M, Appel RD. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health web sites. In: Lun KC, Degoulet P, Piemme TE, Rienhoff O, editors. MEDINFO 98: Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1998. p. 1163-6
12. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites. Comput Biol Med. [Internet]. 1998 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];28(5):603-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4825(98)00037-7
13. Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbühler A. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. In: Moen A, Andersen SK, Aarts J, Hurlen P, editors. User Centred Networked Health Care: Proceedings of MIE 2011. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2011. p. 53-7. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-806-9-53
14. Parnell J, Daly D, Duff J, Walsh A. Quality of health information for women with epilepsy from preconception to postpartum: An evaluation of online resources. Epilepsy Behav. [Internet]. 2025 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];172:110656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2025.110656
15. Zhou G, Murji A, Kobylianskii A, Nensi A, Po L, McCaffrey C, et al. Appraisal of online health information on intravenous iron: Are patients well-informed? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. [Internet]. 2025 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];171(2):538-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70508
16. Busigó Torres R, Restrepo Mejia M, Arroyave JS, Stern BZ, Chen DD, Moucha CS, et al. Evaluating the Readability, Credibility, and Quality of Spanish-Language Online Educational Resources for Knee Arthroplasty: Implications for Patient Education and Health Disparities. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. [Internet]. 2025 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];33(11):594-601. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-01012
17. Health Information For All. Health On the Net Foundation permanently discontinued [Internet]. 2022. [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026]. Disponible en: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/health-net-foundation-permanently-discontinued
18. 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. [Internet]. 1997 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];277(15):1244-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540390074039
19. Alassaf MS, Bakkari A, Saleh J, Habeeb A, Aljuhani BF, Qazali AA, et al. An infodemiologic review of internet resources on dental hypersensitivity: A quality and readability assessment. PLoS One [Internet]. 2025 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];20(1):e0312832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312832
20. Chen AZ, Obana KK, Law C, Mastroianni MA, Magruder ML, Saltzman BM, et al. The state of online information about Platelet-rich plasma (PRP): what are patients asking and what are their sources of information? Phys Sportsmed [Internet]. 2025 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];53(6):492-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2025.2586451
21. Saeed SS, Chahal K, Smith G, Nazar N. Assessing the Quality and Readability of Online Patient Information for Common Proctological Conditions. Cureus [Internet]. 2025 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];17(6):e85595. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.85595
22. Gurler D, Buyukceran I. Assessment of the medical reliability of videos on social media: detailed analysis of the quality and usability of four social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube). Healthcare (Basel) [Internet]. 2022 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];10(10):1836. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10101836
23. 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 [Internet]. 1999 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];53(2):105-11. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105
24. Shepperd S, Charnock D, Gann B. Helping patients access high quality health information. BMJ. [Internet]. 1999 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];319(7212):764-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7212.764
25. Charnock D. The DISCERN handbook: quality criteria for consumer health information on treatment choices. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press; 1998.
26. Mauri G, Lanci E, Sica M, Albano D, Messina C, Gitto S, et al. Evaluating the quality of online medical information regarding vertebroplasty and percutaneous kyphoplasty on social media platforms. Skeletal Radiol. [Internet]. 2025 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];54(12):2629-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-025-04962-x
27. Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA. [Internet]. 1998 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];279(8):611-4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.8.611
28. Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. [Internet]. 2005 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];74(1):13-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001
29. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA [Internet]. 2002 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];287(20):2691-700. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.20.2691
30. Zhang Y, Sun Y, Xie B. Quality of health information for consumers on the web: A systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. [Internet]. 2015 [Consultado el 15 de junio de 2026];66(10):2071-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23311
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Karen Guerrero-Sánchez, Carlos Feijoo-Requejo, Vanessa Garzón Rams, César Pomacóndor-Hernández
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
