Evaluating the Design and Information of the Top Breast Cancer Web Sites
Pamela Whitten, Sandi Smith, Samantha Munday, and Carolyn La Plante
Michigan State University
Introduction
The internet is a prominent source of
health information for the public. A
plethora of studies have already been
conducted on the public’s use of the
internet to seek information on breast
cancer (Thomas et al., 2002) and the
quality of breast cancer websites
(Hoffman-Goetz & Clarke, 2000). This
research seeks to evaluate both the type
and range of information, as well as basic
use and design features of the top 181
breast cancer websites.
Methods
A content analysis coding scheme was
created by the research team that includes
over 100 design and theoretical
information elements. Data will provide
important information to explain the
current strengths and weaknesses of
popular breast cancer websites. A
summary of the results will offer a
prescriptive template for improving the
information and design of breast cancer
websites for multiple stakeholders.
To develop a list of the top breast cancer
websites, the three most frequently used
search engines (Nielsen/NetRatings, 2006),
Google,Yahoo and MSN, were searched
using the key words “breast cancer” and
“breast cancer environment.” The top one
hundred hits from all six searches were
then combined into one list. One hundred
and seventy-seven websites met the study’s
inclusionary criteria.
This poster presents initial results for
the first 80 websites that have been coded
for select variables. It is also worth noting
that the first 80 websites consist mostly of
websites found on both of the searches or
the environment and breast cancer search
only. Therefore, these data should be highly
representative of websites that deal both
with breast cancer and the environment.
Selected Variable Frequencies
Design Features
Is a working link provided for a contact
person or an address for further
information?
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal directed behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and
perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 435- 474.
Bausch, S., & Han, L. (2006). Google accounts for half of all U.S searches in April according to
Nielsen/NetRatings. Nielsen/NetRatings Inc. Retrieved June 3, 2006 from http://www.nielsennetratings.com/pr/pr_060525.pdf
Gustafson, D.H., McTavish, F.M, Stengle, B.D., Hawkins, R., Shaw, B. R., Jones, E., et al.
(2005). Use and impact of ehealthsystem by low-income women with breast cancer. Journal of
Health Communication, 10, pp. 195-218.
Hoffman-Goetz, L. & Clarke, Juanne Nancarrow. (2000). Quality of breast sites on the world wide
web. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 91, 4, pp. 281-285.
Does the website provide a definition of breast
cancer?
No – 46 (57.5%)
No – 8 (10%)
Yes – 72 (90%)
Does the website have any inactive, outdated
(“dead”) links?
No – 55 (68.8%)
Yes – 25 (31.3%)
Is content updated frequently (within
the last month?
No – 30 (37.5%)
Yes – 50 (62.5%)
Do all graphic elements include informational
content (implies a traceable, significant, logical
connection)?
No – 11 (13.3%)
Yes – 69 (86.3%)
Location of the navigation bar on the
homepage.
None -2 (2.5%)
Top – 16 (20%)
Top and bottom – 22 (27.5%)
Left – 15 (18.8%)
Other – 6 (7.5%)
Top and left – 5 (6.3%
Top, bottom, and left – 7 (8.8%)
Left and bottom – 7 (8.8%)
References
Anderson, P. F., Allee, N., Grove, S., & Hill, S. (1999). Website evaluation checklist. Medical
Library Association Encyclopedia Guide to Searching and Finding health Information on the
Internet. Retrieved June 9, 2006 from
http://www.personal.umich.edu/~pfa.mlaguide/free/webevall.pdf.
Informational Content
Conclusions
Yes – 34 (42.5%)
Does website have a section describing negative
consequences for behaviors that increase breast
cancer risk?
No – 45 (56.3%)
Yes – 35 (43.8%)
Does website have a section encouraging
readers to adopt healthy prevention behaviors?
No – 61 (76.3%)
Yes – 19 (23.8%)
Does website have a section presenting
reminder cues to prompt healthy breast
cancer prevention habits?
No – 67 (83.8%)
Yes –13 (16.3%)
Is the sponsor of the website nonprofit or for
profit?
Does the website provide risk statistics?
No – 19 (23.8%)
Yes – 61 (76.3%)
Does website have a section providing access to social
support (e.g., chatroom or contact information links)?
No – 35 (43.8%)
Yes – 45 (56.3%)
Does website have a section for message boards?
No – 70 (87.5%)
Yes – 10 (12.5%)
Does website have a section informing users about
environment factors that increase breast cancer
risk?
No – 42 (52.5%)
Yes – 38 (47.5%)
Does website have a section explaining how
personal prevention habits affect the social
environment?
No – 80 (100%)
Nonprofit – 65 (81.3%)
For profit – 15 (18.8%)
Does website have a section urging users to
evaluate self-image in terms of preventative
habits?
No-80 (100%)
1. Design Features appear to be incorporated well.
2. Informational Content:
1. Risk statistics and references for social support are present in more than half
of the websites.
McLachlan, L. (2002). Www cyberguide rating for website content evaluation.
McLachlan, L. (2002). Www cyberguide ratings for website design
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back in fear appeals: the extended parallel process model.
Communication Monographs, 59, pp. 329-349.
2. Websites could improve by listing environmental factors that might cause
breast cancer and negative consequences of risky behavior, enhancing beliefs
that people can change to healthy behaviors, providing reminders to engage
in healthy behaviors and prompts to evaluate self image while engaging in
risky behaviors, showing that personal habits affect the social environment,
and providing message boards to increase social support.
Velicer, W. F., Prochaska, J. O., Fava, J. L., Norman, G. J., Redding, C. A. (1998). Smoking
cessation and stress management: Applications of the trastheoretical model of behavior
change. Homeostasis, 38, 216-233.
.
This publication was made possible by the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Centers
grant number U01 ES012800 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS),
and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH, DHHS. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIEHS or NCI.