The DARTS tool for assessing online medicines information
- 202 Downloads
Objective The use of the Internet as a source of medicines information is increasing. However, the quality of online information is highly variable. Equipping Internet users to distinguish good quality information is the aim of a new five-item quality assessment tool (DARTS) that was developed by the Working Group on Information to Patients under the Pharmaceutical Forum established by the European Commission. The objective of this study was to investigate how people with depression assess the quality of online medicines information and to study their opinions about the DARTS tool in assisting in this process. Setting Focus group discussions with Internet users were conducted in metropolitan Helsinki, Finland. Method Six focus group discussions (67–109 min duration) were conducted with people with depression (n = 29). The DARTS tool was used as a stimulus after open discussion in relation to the evaluation of the quality of Internet-based medicines information. The focus groups were digitally audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were thematically content analysed by two researchers. Results Focus group participants were generally critical of the information they retrieved. However, few participants systematically applied quality assessment criteria when retrieving online information. No participants had knowledge or experience of any quality assessment tools. The DARTS tool was perceived as being concise and easy to use and understand. Many participants indicated it would allay some of their concerns related to information quality and act as a reminder. While several participants felt the tool should not be any more extensive, some of them believed it should include a more in-depth explanation to accompany each of the quality criteria. Conclusions The DARTS tool may act as a prompt for people with depression to assess the quality of online information they obtain. The five DARTS criteria may form the basis of a systematic approach to quality assessment and the tool may also act as a reminder of quality issues in general. Further studies are needed to assess the actual value of the DARTS tool as well as its value in relation to other quality assessment instruments.
KeywordsDARTS-tool Drug information Finland Patient information Patient participation Qualitative evaluation
The authors thank the Finnish Students Health Service, Mieli Maasta Ry Depression Alliance and Nyyti for their enthusiastic participation in this initiative. The authors are particularly grateful for the support and assistance provided by Dr Kari Pylkkänen and Ms Hilkka Kärkkäinen.
The study did not receive any external funding.
Conflicts of interests
During the study, UN and AK worked for the National Agency for Medicines, Finland. UN was a member of the European Commission Pharmaceutical Forum Working Group on Information to Patients. At the moment, she works for the European Commission.
- 6.Morahan-Martin JA. How do internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. Cyber Behav. 2004;7:497–510.Google Scholar
- 19.Pharmaceutical Forum—Introduction. DG Enterprise and Industry. http://www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/phabiocom/comp_pf_en.htm
- 20.High level pharmaceutical forum public consultation on health-related information to patients—related documents. DG Enterprise and Industry. http://www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/phabiocom/comp_pf_pat_reldoc.htm
- 25.Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä M, Saari JK, Närhi U, Karjalainen A, Pylkkänen K, Airaksinen MS, et al. How and why people with depression access and utilize online drug information: a qualitative study. J Affect Disord. In press.Google Scholar
- 26.National Agency for Medicines. http://www.nam.fi
- 28.Mieli Maasta ry— Depression alliance. http://www.mielimaasta.fi/english.html.
- 29.Finnish Student Health Service. http://www.fshs.fi/netcomm/default.asp?strLAN=EN.
- 30.Nyyti ry—opiskelijoiden tukikeskus. (In Finnish) http://www.nyyti.fi/.
- 31.World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm
- 33.Discern. http://www.discern.org.uk/index.php.
- 34.Health on the Net Foundation. http://www.hon.ch/index.html.
- 35.U.S. Food and Drug Administration. How to Evaluate Health Information on the Internet. http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/evalhealthinfo.html.
- 36.Plus Guide to Healthy Web Surfing. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/healthywebsurfing.html.
- 37.European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. Guidelines for Internet Web sites available to health professionals, patients and the public in the EU. http://www.efpia.org/Objects/2/Files/Internetguidelines.pdf.
- 39.eEurope. Quality Criteria for Health related Websites. 2002. http://www.ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/ehealth/doc/communication_acte_en_fin.pdf.
- 40.Analysis of 9th HON Survey of Health and Medical Internet Users Winter 2004–2005. Health on the Net Foundation. http://www.hon.ch/Survey/Survey2005/res.html.
- 43.Childs S. Developing health website quality assessment guidelines for the voluntary sector: outcomes from the Judge Project. Health Info Libr J 2004, 21(Suppl 2):14–26Google Scholar