"Vaccine safety web sites meeting credibility and content good information practices criteria"
The World Health Organization has created the "Vaccine Safety Net" and administractive process whereby staff review vaccine-relatred Websites to determine whether a site is "credible" and provides "good content" based on WHO's specific criteria. Such criteria requires that a site be asthetically pleasing, easy to navigate, have a sitemap, help features, and consistently use the same layout, design, and colors. Those are all aspects of a well designed quality Website.
Therefore, I decied to keep an open mind about the Web review service. So, I read through the criteria required to be including and scanned the list of approved sites hoping for some degree of objectivity. There were none...except for the usual suspects.
None of the Websites currently listed contain any information on the real risks, dangers, and adverse reactions experienced everyday by unsuspecting parents, children and adult victims. It's completely misleading, one-sided retoric that is steering parents in the wrong directionion.
The CDC, for example, is a great example of dis- and mis-information agendas. The vaccine safety claims made on the CDC's website are based on nothing! The research they rely on regarding vaccines and autism is statistically and scientifically invalid. The researcher's noted this fact in the notes to the study. Just a small oversite, I guess.
The WHO appear a bit arrogant but smart enough to both push their polical agenda while censor the accurate vaccine related sites on the Internet. Shut them down!!
Unfortunately, most of the organization that are trying to help inform parents, children, and adults about the real dangers associated with vaccines don't have the taxpayer support like the WHO and CDC. Both have appealing Websites with sitemaps and everything. However, I noticed the CDC website design changes almost every weekl. No joke! That would disqualify any other Site from being on the "list".
I have one last question....How does the WHO have time to review Websites?? Does that sounds like a good use of WHO's time and resources?
Vaccine Safety Net
Websites providing information on vaccine safety which adhere to good information practices
:: WHO Note for the media - May 2005 (English)
:: WHO Note for the media - May 2005 (French)
The World Wide Web is a mine of useful information on various topics, but also contains websites of dubious quality. While many quality web sites offer science-based information about vaccine safety, other sites provide unbalanced and misleading information. This can lead to undue fears, particularly among parents and patients.
D. Pfeifer
To assist readers in identifying web sites providing information on vaccine safety that comply with good information practices, the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has recommended a list of criteria that sites providing information on vaccine safety should adhere to.
The recommended criteria fall into four categories:
- Essential criteria i.e. with respect to credibility
- Important criteria i.e. with respect to content
- Practical criteria i.e. with respect to accessibility
- Desired criteria i.e with respect to design WHO has reviewed a number of sites for adherence to the credibility and content criteria noted above.
- Sites reviewed by WHO that adhere to the credibility and content criteria of good information practices
Sites not listed do not appear because either they have not been reviewed, they are currently being reviewed, or they have been reviewed and do not meet the credibility and content criteria noted above. Commercial sites are not listed as a matter of policy.
Listed sites are re-evaluated for their adherence to the credibility and content criteria every two years. Evaluation dates are included withinin each site description.
It should be noted that the provision of a link from the WHO web site to other sites does not indicate endorsement of those sites by WHO, and WHO accepts no responsibility for the validity or accuracy of their content. The depth and breadth of content varies according to the type of organization and the resources within that organization available for web management.
Requests for site evaluation should be sent to immunizationsafety@who.int
Credibility (Essential criteria)
Mission of site
Other criteria
Content (Important criteria)
Accessibility (Practical criteria)
Design (Desired criteria)
* Purpose of the website stated.
* Intended audience defined.
* If the site provides a mission statement, the content of the site matches statement.
Disclosure of ownership/source
* Individual or organization name, physical address, and electronic address provided on every page.
* Qualifications/credentials of organization or individual site owner, including type of organization (e.g., government, non-profit, commercial, etc.).
* Organization or individual's affiliations and alliances and disclosure of any relationship that might influence the content of the site.
* Editorial Board, Advisory Board, or Board of Directors members listed with credentials.
Transparency of sponsorship
* Disclosure of all sources of funding for organization/website (grants, sponsors, advertisers, fees, personal).
* Disclosure of any relevant personal or financial associations that might be considered a potential conflict of interest.
* If advertising is a source of funding, this should be clearly stated and a brief description of the owner's advertising policy should be included.
* Content intended to promote or sell a product or service should be clearly distinguished from the educational and scientific content.
Accountability to Users
* Multiple methods of contacting the owner of the site (e-mail address, electronic form, mail, phone, fax) must be available from the home page and be easily accessible from other pages of the site.
* Owner or representative should respond to feedback in a timely and appropriate manner.
* A site offering interactive exchanges (e.g., chat room, medical advice) should provide information about the moderator or clinician's expertise and affiliations and source of compensation, as well as a disclaimer that all posted information may not be accurate.
Data protection
* Sites should not collect, use, or share personal data without the a user's specific affirmative consent.
* Users should be informed of any use of data they provide.
* Sites must describe how the organization treats private or semi-private information such as e-mail addresses and content. A privacy statement or confidentiality policy page must be displayed.
* Sites should take reasonable steps to protect personal data from unauthorized access.
Responsible partnering
* Efforts should be made to partner with or link only to other websites that comply with the same high standards as the home site, including policies on privacy and advertising.
* Indicate whether links to other sites are informational only or if such links imply endorsement.
* Indicate when users are leaving the home site (e.g., a disclaimer sentence, descriptive sentence about the linked source, or transitional screen).
Content (Important criteria)
Quality of information
Other criteria
Credibility (Essential criteria)
Accessibility (Practical criteria)
Design (Desired criteria)
* Authority of sources: Clear statement of source for all information, including author's name, credentials, affiliations, and any relevant financial disclosure or potential conflict of interest bias. Description of any "seal of approval" or award the website has been granted.
* Attribution: All information supported by citations to source resources with hypertext links if available. The site should indicate whether information is based on scientific studies, expert consensus, professional opinion, or personal experience or opinion.
* Accuracy: The information presented should be based on objective, scientific research. The site should identify the evidence that supports a position including references to published studies and reference works. There should be a way for readers to contact the site owner and/or author with questions or corrections.
* Currency: The date that content was first developed and the date of last update or modification should be clearly indicated on each piece. The date the whole site was updated or the copyright date is not adequate. Site should not contain out-dated information.
* Review process: Statement of procedure used for selection of site content, including a guarantee of the independence of the editorial process, the names and credentials of the Editorial Board, and any review process.
* Standards of writing/editing: Writing on the site should be professional, with proper grammar, spelling, and composition.
Quantity of information
* Completeness: Includes the comprehensiveness of a resource, including the breadth and depth of coverage, the retrospective coverage (archived items), and the balance of the information presented, such as admitting when an issue is controversial and including all reasonable sides in a fair way.
* Uniqueness: Although not essential, a site usually offers something unique either in terms of coverage or format compared to a similar print resource. If a print equivalent exists, how does the electronic version compare in terms of cost and ease of use?
* Provision of links to other resources: Offering hypertext links to other resources can greatly enhance the value of a site, assuming the links are carefully selected and their content is accurate, current, and credible.
Accessibility (Practical criteria)
Accessibility (Practical criteria)
Other criteria
Credibility (Essential criteria)
Content (Important criteria)
Design (Desired criteria)
* Website should be consistently available and not frequently inaccessible due to server unreliability, high demand, or other problems.
* Website should be accessible by the lowest-level available browser commonly used. The site should provide information about the platform(s) and browser(s) that permit viewing.
* The site should not have large and unnecessary graphics.
* Simple HTML (text) alternatives should be available for essential information, as not everyone has the desire or capability to download and use all software and plug-ins needed to view audio, video, or PDF files.
* If content is available as a PDF (camera-ready) document, the site should include information on how to download the file and instructions (and a link) for obtaining the necessary software to do so.
* Users should be warned (and file size indicated) before attempting to download large files, and alternatives should be provided.
* If frames must be used, a "No Frames" alternative should be offered.
* User support service contact information should be available for technical questions.
* Site should have a good internal search engine with clear instructions for its use.
* Sites should not prevent visitors from returning to a previous site or redirect the user to a site the viewer did not intend to visit.
* Intrasite and external links should be monitored and maintained to minimize broken links. Visitors should be able to easily escape side searches and find his/her way backward and forward through links. Users should be alerted when leaving the original site.
* It is helpful, but not essential, that a site be accessible from common Internet search engines.
Personal
* Who can access site? (e.g., is all content free or are there restrictions on access, is registration necessary, etc.) If there a charge to access the website, how does this fee compare to other available materials?
* Are materials on the site copyrighted or in the public domain? Information on the legality of further use or distribution of materials should be clearly posted.
* What language is the website written in? Are other languages available?
* Language should be clear, easy to read, and appropriate for intended users.
* Text font, size, and colour should be readable. Website design should keep in mind the special accessibility issues of many potential users, such as the visually impaired. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines from the Web Accessibility Initiative include suggestions for backgrounds, text, colours, links, navigation, and more.
printable version
Design (Desired criteria)
Other criteria
Credibility (Essential criteria)
Content (Important criteria)
Accessibility (Practical criteria)
* Logical organization: The design of the site should allow users to progress logically through the information and access information in an orderly manner.
* Ease of navigation: Are there aids to finding information such as a site map, index, help function, frequently-asked questions page, and/or internal search engine? Users should be able to easily move between pages without getting lost.
* Consistent plan: The site should be internally consistent in terms of design, including use of logos and icons, colour, fonts, page layout, etc.
* Professional presentation: The overall look of the site should be professional and aesthetically pleasing.
Vaccine safety web sites meeting credibility and content good information practices criteria
Each link below leads to a site summary and a link to the web site.
:: Asociación Española de Pediatría (AEP)
:: Asociación Española de Vacunología (AEV)
:: Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärzte (BVKJ)
:: Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS)
:: Centro Nazionale di Epidemiologia Sorveglianza, Promozione della Salute, Instituto Superiore di Sanità (EpiCentro)
:: Childhood Immunization Support Program (CISP), American Academy of Pediatrics
:: Division of Viral Hepatitis, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
:: Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS)
:: Health Protection Agency, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
:: Immunization Action Coalition (IAC)
:: Impfbrief.de
:: Impfkontrolle.de
:: InfoVac
:: Institute for Vaccine Safety, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
:: Murcia Salud
:: National Immunization Program (NIP), and Immunization Safety Office (ISO), United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
:: National Immunisation Programme of the Health Service Executive of Ireland
:: National Network for Immunization Information (NNii)
:: Network Italiano dei Servizi di Vaccinazione (NIV)
:: NHS Immunisation Information
:: PATH's Vaccine Resource Library
:: Public Health Agency of Canada
:: Rijksvaccinatieprogramma (RVP)
:: Robert Koch Institute
:: Sabin Vaccine Institute
:: Siemprevacunados
:: South African Vaccination and Immunisation Centre (SAVIC)
:: Vaccine Education Center (VEC), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
:: Vaccines for Africa (VACFA)
:: Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board (VHPB)
Last update: 24 November 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment