Consumer Reports WebWatch : What's Really Going On
advanced search
For Consumers For Media For Businesses
home about investigations guidelines consumer center media contact
Site Map Print this Page
  LOGIN   |   REGISTER
 
Consumer Investigation Request
Web Credibility
Travel
Search Engines
Health
Research Reports
Consumer Investigations
Conferences & Transcripts
Consumer Center
Web Ethics
E-Commerce
Financial
Families and Children
Privacy
Journalism
Online Advertising
Fraud
Non Profit sites

Privacy Policy


 
Tools
 
Increase Font Size
Decrease Font Size

 
 
 
 
Health Research Reports
 

HealthRatings.org Rates
20 Health Information Sites

June 9, 2005

Research Conducted by:
Consumer Reports WebWatch and the Health Improvement Institute (HII)

Consumer Reports WebWatch
101 Truman Ave.
Yonkers, N.Y., USA 10703-1057

View Ratings

Please Note: HealthRatings.org has since been updated with a new round of ratings. In order to access the ratings discussed here, please click on the drop-down box in the lower left-hand corner of the HealthRatings.org homepage.

Abstract

Following Consumer Reports WebWatch criteria for credibility, WebWatch employed professional testers to evaluate all 20 health information sites used in this study. HII used a different tool and employed raters from the health care community to create overall ratings. Together the two organizations rated the 20 most-trafficked sites according to Nielsen/NetRatings data across nine different attributes including identity, advertising and sponsorship disclosure, ease of use, privacy, coverage, design, accessibility and contents.

These ratings are illustrated on www.healthratings.org by Consumer Reports ratings symbols for each criteria. Testing for specific medical subject matter knowledge is beyond the scope of the study.

Results:

    --Of the 20 sites rated, six were given the highest rating, "Excellent"; five received a "Very Good" rating; eight were given a rating of "Good;" and one site was rated "Fair."

    --Two sites are non-profit, accepting no advertising.

    --The best sites offered a clear distinction between editorial content and sponsored content.

    --Sites rated "Eexcellent" included unbiased, peer-reviewed content written by health professionals.

    --"Fair" sites often did not disclose that health content and surveys were sponsored by advertisers, had no policies to correct false, misleading or incorrect information, and seemed to be functioning as marketing sites for health products.


 
Report Tools
Print this story

Write to the editor

 © Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.