[Comparative analysis of quality labels of health websites]

The search for health related information on the Internet is a growing phenomenon, buts its main drawback is the lack of reliability of information consulted. The aim of this study was to analyse and compare existing quality labels of health websites.

A cross-sectional study was performed by searching Medline, IBECS, Google, and Yahoo, in both English and Spanish, between 8 and 9 March, 2015. Different keywords were used depending on whether the search was conducted in medical databases or generic search engines. The quality labels were classified according to their origin, analysing their character, year of implementation, the existence of the accreditation process, number of categories, criteria and standards, possibility of self-assessment, number of levels of certification, certification scope, validity, analytical quality of content, fee, results of the accreditation process, application and number of websites granted the seal, and quality labels obtained by the accrediting organisation.

Seven quality labels, five of Spanish origin (WMA, PAWS, WIS, SEAFORMEC and M21) and two international ones (HONcode and Health Web Site Accreditation), were analysed. There was disparity in carrying out the accreditation process, with some not detailing key aspects of the process, or providing incomplete, outdated, or even inaccurate information. The most rigorous guaranteed the level of confidence that the websites had in relation to the content of information, but none checked the quality of them.

Although rigorous quality labels may become useful, the deficiencies in some of them cast doubt on their current usefulness.