Health information on Wikipedia
The
The English Wikipedia was estimated in 2014 to hold around 25,000 articles on health-related topics.[3] Across Wikipedia encyclopedias in all languages there were 155,000 health articles using 950,000 citations to sources and which collectively received 4.8 billion pageviews in 2013.[4] This amount of traffic makes Wikipedia one of the most consulted health resources in the world, or perhaps the most consulted resource.[4]
Amount of health content
As of the end of 2013, the English Wikipedia had 29,072 medical articles, while across all language versions of Wikipedia, there were 155,805 medical articles.[4]
As of March 2017, the English Wikipedia had 30,000 medical articles, while there were 164,000 medical articles in other languages.[5]
As of 2017, there were about 6,000 anatomy articles on the English Wikipedia;[6] these are not classified as "medical articles" in Wikipedia's categorization scheme and thus are not included in the 30,000 figure above.[4]
Academic studies
Accuracy and usefulness
A 2007 study examined a sample of Wikipedia pages about the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States, and found that 85.7% of them were appropriate for patients and that these articles had "a remarkably high level of internal validity".[7] However, the same study also raised concerns about Wikipedia's completeness, noting that only 62.9% of the articles examined were free of "critical omissions".[7] A 2008 study reported that drug information on Wikipedia "has a more narrow scope, is less complete, and has more errors of omission" than did such information on the traditionally edited online database
A 2011 assessment of 50 medical articles on Wikipedia found that 56% of the references cited on these pages could be considered reputable, and that each entry contained 29 reputable sources on average.[10] A 2011 study examined Wikipedia pages about five statins, and concluded that these pages did not contain incorrect or misleading information, but that they were often missing information about drug interactions and contraindications to use.[11] Another 2011 study examining Wikipedia articles on the 20 most widely prescribed drugs found that seven of these articles did not have any references, and concluded that "Wikipedia does not provide consistently accurate, complete, and referenced medication information."[12]
An assessment of Wikipedia articles in 2012 on
A 2013 scoping review published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research summarized the existing evidence about the use of wikis, Wikipedia and other collaborative writing applications in health care and found that the available research publications were observational reports rather than the primary research studies which would be necessary to begin drawing conclusions.[14]
A 2014 study that examined 97 Wikipedia articles about
In May 2014,
A 2014 study found that when the FDA issues new safety warnings about drugs, in 41% of cases reviewed Wikipedia articles about those drugs were updated to give the new safety information within two weeks.[24] Another 23% of Wikipedia drug articles were updated to give this information within an average of about 40 days, but 36% of articles are not updated with this information within a year.[24] A 2014 comparison between selected drug information from pharmacology textbooks and comparable information on the English-language and German-language Wikipedias found that the drug information in Wikipedia covers most of what is essential for undergraduate pharmacology studies and that it is accurate.[25]
A 2015 study comparing the coverage of the
Readability
In 2012, Wikipedia's articles on depression and schizophrenia were compared to coverage in Encyclopædia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook and evaluated for their accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing, and readability. Wikipedia was ranked highly across all categories except for readability.[29]
A 2013 review of nephrology content on Wikipedia found it to be "a comprehensive and fairly reliable medical resource for nephrology patients that is written at a college reading level".[30]
A 2014 study found that Wikipedia's article on Parkinson's disease had a Flesch reading ease score of 30.31, meaning that it was difficult to read.[31]
The readability of Wikipedia's articles on
A 2016 study found that Wikipedia information about common internal medicine diagnoses was written at a higher grade level than any of the four other sites studied (NIH, WebMD, Mayo Clinic, and "diagnosis-specific websites").[36] In contrast, another study published the same year found that medical students reading about three unstudied diseases on AccessMedicine and Wikipedia experienced less mental effort than did readers of the same diseases on UpToDate.[37]
A 2017 study evaluating 134 Wikipedia articles on autoimmune diseases found that they were very difficult to read and required at least a university graduate reading level. The study's authors were concerned by Wikipedia's low readability, as people with autoimmune disorders often use Wikipedia to research their condition.[38]
A 2018 study evaluating 55 Wikipedia articles on neurosurgical topics found that they were significantly more difficult to read than the American Association of Neurological Surgeons's patient information articles, although both Wikipedia's articles and the AANS articles required a college reading level.[39]
Other views
Wikipedia co-founder
As a result of public interest in the 2014
Alternative medicine
People who promote
Usage
The majority of people in the United States use the internet as a source of health information.[46] The third most common activity for information seeking online is looking up health or medical information.[47] One 2013 study suggested that 22% of healthcare searches online direct users to Wikipedia.[48]
Wikipedia was described in 2014 in a report published by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics as "the leading single source" of healthcare information for patients and healthcare professionals.[49] According to the same report, 50% of U.S. physicians that go online for professional purposes are using Wikipedia to access information. These facts were referenced on page 17 from the same research report published by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics on "Engaging Patients Through Social Media," and were recirculated further in popular media outlets and peer-reviewed articles. The IMS report provides a citation to an undated research report in "Taking the Pulse" by Manhattan Research, which is unavailable using most library research databases
In July 2014, Wikipedia's medical content in all languages was viewed more often than any other popular healthcare website, including the
General public
A 2015 study compared the popularity of Wikipedia's articles on ten of the most common neurological disorders over a 90-day period from April 2014 to July 2014; it found that there was no relationship between the incidence or prevalence of a neurological disorder and the number of page views it received. For example, Wikipedia's article on
Medical students
Wikipedia's health information has been described as "transforming how our next doctors learn medicine".[53] Various commentators in health education have said that Wikipedia is popular and convenient for medical students.[54]
A 2013 study done at a single Australian medical school showed that 97% of students used Wikipedia to study medicine, with the most common reasons being ease of access and ease of understanding. There was no relationship between a student's year in medical school and his or her use of Wikipedia, but students further along in medical school were less likely to use Wikipedia as their first resource, only resource, or most common resource; they were also more likely to perceive Wikipedia as unreliable.[55]
In 2013, UCSF School of Medicine began to offer fourth-year medical students a month-long elective centered around improving Wikipedia's health-related articles. Between 2013 and 2015, 43 students took part in the course and chose a single health-related article to work on. A study of their contributions by UCSF faculty found that the students expanded their articles, added higher-quality sources, removed lower-quality sources, and improved readability. The study's authors argued that medical schools should encourage students to contribute to Wikipedia, both to improve the quality of its content and to enable students to become better health care educators.[56]
A 2013 study of a particular group of veterinary students found that the majority of these students sought and found medical information on Wikipedia.[57]
A 2015 study of five European medical schools found that students who used Wikipedia for general information were more likely to use it to look up medical information. 16% of students used Wikipedia often for general information, 60% sometimes, and 24% rarely. 12% of students used Wikipedia often for medical information, 55% sometimes, and 33% rarely. Almost all of the students (97%) found inaccurate information on Wikipedia at least once, but less than 20% of them corrected it.[58]
A 2015 study of medical students at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, found that they ranked Google and Wikipedia highly for their accessibility, understandability, and usefulness but ranked PubMed higher for accuracy and trustworthiness.[59]
A 2017 study of online resource use by first-year medical students at
A 2017 study of resources used by medical students during their general surgery
Residents
A 2009 study of Internet use by 35
A 2015 survey of psychiatry residents at Harvard Medical School found that they used online resources twice as often as they used printed resources. The three most commonly used resources were UpToDate, PubMed, and Wikipedia. UpToDate was the most used resource and was considered to be the most trustworthy, while PubMed was the second most used resource and was highly rated as a source of personal learning. Wikipedia was the third most used resource and received the highest ranking for ease of use; however, it was considered the least trustworthy.[63]
Physicians and other health professionals
A 2013 study of 500 European physicians, most of whom were from Austria and Switzerland, found that general search engines like Google were the most popular type of online medical resource, followed by medical research databases like PubMed, followed in third by Wikipedia. 56% of physicians in training (residents) reported using Wikipedia, versus only 37% of physicians who had already completed their training.[64]
A 2014 study of 259 health professionals in Spain found that while 53% of them used the Spanish Wikipedia to look up medical information during work, only 3% of them considered it reliable and only 16% recommended it to their patients. Only 16% had ever edited a Wikipedia article; the most common reasons for not doing were that they did not consider themselves an expert (51%), they preferred to blog or publish peer-reviewed articles (21%), and they were concerned that someone would undo any contributions they made (17%).[65]
Researchers
Wikipedia and Wikidata are interconnected projects within the Wikimedia ecosystem.[66] Wikidata contains structured data of medical information which is useful in itself, and which also informs information in Wikipedia.[66] The act of putting medical information into the Wikimedia ecosystem changes it in various ways, including making it more accessible, staging it for remixing, and interacting with other information in the Wikimedia platform.[66]
Academic citations
Wikipedia has been inappropriately cited as an authoritative source in many health science journals.[67][68]
Impact on psychological tests
In 2009 a doctor and Wikipedia editor, James Heilman, incorporated public domain images of the Rorschach test into Wikipedia.[69] Psychologists complained that the increased public exposure to these tests devalued their clinical utility, and that public health was harmed as a result.[69]
Nature of contributors
A 2014 interview study found that around half of the editors of health-related content on the English-language Wikipedia are health care professionals, while the other half includes some medical students.[3] An author of this study wrote that this provides "reassurance about the reliability of the website".[3] The study also found that the "core editor community", who actively monitor and edit most health-related articles on the English-language Wikipedia, numbered around 300 people.[70] The study found that people who contribute on these topics do so for a variety of reasons, including a desire to better learn the subjects themselves, and a sense of both responsibility and enjoyment in improving others' access to health information.[70]
A 2016 study found that Wikipedia editors who contributed to articles on designer drugs were most likely to also contribute to articles on illegal drugs and pharmaceutical drugs, implying that they have a background in pharmacology. They were also more likely to contribute to articles on neurological disorders, psychiatric disorders, other diseases, and cell biology; they were least likely to edit articles about popular culture topics or history.[71]
Traffic statistics in health monitoring
Just as
Projects to improve health information on Wikipedia
In 2009 the National Institutes of Health attempted a pilot project for integrating health information into Wikipedia.[76]
In 2011, it was reported that Cancer Research UK had started a program whereby some of its staff would edit Wikipedia's cancer-related articles.[77]
The International League Against Epilepsy has an ongoing project called Wikipedia Epilepsy project to enhance the quality and knowledge about epilepsy[78]
Health organisations like NIOSH,[79] NIHR[80] and Cochrane[81] also started employing Wikimedians in residence to coordinate their contributions to Wikipedia.
The University of California, San Francisco has a program for encouraging students to contribute health content to Wikipedia.[82]
See also
- Health information on the Internet
- List of medical wikis
- Reliability of Wikipedia
- Science information on Wikipedia
- Academic studies of health information on Wikipedia, a list maintained within Wikipedia of all academic publications on Wikipedia's health content
References
- PMID 19390105.
- PMID 21282098.
- ^ a b c Faric, Nusa (5 December 2014). "Around half of Wikipedia's medical editors are experts". Diff. Wikimedia Foundation.
- ^ PMID 25739399.
- PMID 28847845.
- PMID 28703298.
- ^ .
- S2CID 2072846.
- PMID 20595302.
- PMID 20646799.
- PMID 22022226.
- .
- PMID 25063262.
- PMID 24103318.
- PMID 24864148.
- PMID 24778001.
- ^ Hasty, Robert (8 May 2014). "Dr. Robert Hasty - Wikipedia vs. Peer-Reviewed Medical Articles". youtube.com. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
- ^ Stephens, Pippa (28 May 2014). "Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists". bbc.com. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
- ^ Kedmey, Dan (27 May 2014). "Don't Trust Wikipedia When It Comes to Your Health, Study Says". time.com. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
- ^ Gagnon, Tiffany (28 May 2014). "Are Wikipedia Health Tips Making You Sick?". Men's Fitness. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
- ^ Dillner, Luisa (1 June 2014). "Is Wikipedia a reliable source for medical advice?". theguardian.com. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
- ^ Chatterjee, Anwesh; Cooke, Robin M.T.; Furst, Ian; Heilman, James (23 June 2014). "Is Wikipedia's medical content really 90% wrong?". cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 2 July 2014. Retrieved 23 June 2014.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ Pippa Stephens – Health reporter – BBC News – 28 May 2014 Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists (Accessed on 14 March 2017)
- ^ PMID 24963564.
- PMID 25250889.
- PMID 25665960.
- PMID 27866956.
- PMID 28139458.
- S2CID 13329595.
- S2CID 23361618.
- S2CID 23254630.
- S2CID 24972881.
- S2CID 45947522.
- S2CID 38229496.
- PMID 26443650.
- PMID 26829438.
- PMID 26807049.
- PMID 28720555.
- S2CID 3544057.
- ^ from the original on 9 May 2022. Retrieved 7 October 2014.
- ^ ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
- ^ a b Sifferlin, Alexandra (25 March 2014). "Wikipedia Founder Sticks It To 'Lunatic' Holistic Healers". Time. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
- ^ Hay Newman, Lily (27 March 2014) Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic Healing Coverage, Slate (magazine) Retrieved 23 November 2014
- ^ ACEP's Position Statement on Wikipedia energypsych.org Retrieved 23 November 2014
- The Huffington Post. Retrieved 23 November 2014.
- ^ Fox, S.; Jones, S. (11 June 2009). "The social life of health information". Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project (cited 6 October 2010). Archived from the original on 12 January 2014. Retrieved 12 October 2015.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ "Health Fact Sheet". Pew Research Center: Internet Research. 2013.
- ^ Makovsky Health (9 September 2013). "Online Health Research Eclipsing Patient-Doctor Conversations – Makovsky". makovsky.com. Archived from the original on 13 October 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
- ^ Note – sketchy link requires registration. IMS Health (2014). "The use of Wikipedia in Health Care". Engaging patients through social media Is healthcare ready for empowered and digitally demanding patients?. IMS Health. pp. 16–26. Archived from the original on 25 January 2014. Retrieved 22 January 2014. Further cited in
- NPR staff (8 February 2014). "Dr. Wikipedia: The 'Double-Edged Sword' Of Crowd-Sourced Medicine". npr.org. NPR. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
- Feltman, Rachel (28 January 2014). "America's future doctors are starting their careers by saving Wikipedia". qz.com. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
- Tucker, Miriam E. (5 February 2014). "Doctors, Not Just Patients, Use Wikipedia, Too: IMS Report". Medscape. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
- Beck, Julie (5 March 2014). "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia". theatlantic.com. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
- PMID 19390105.
- .
- S2CID 25821260.
- ^ Morris, Nathaniel P. (18 November 2013). "Wikipedia's role in medical education brings awesome promise — and a few risks". bostonglobe.com. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
- S2CID 164238600.
- S2CID 39910202.
- PMID 27627633.
- PMID 23467415.
- PMID 25879421.
- PMID 27731842.
- PMID 28970187.
- S2CID 42481415.
- PMID 19501017.
- S2CID 207500506.
- PMID 23803299.
- PMID 25087118.
- ^ PMID 32180547.
- PMID 24603564.
- ^ Blackwell, Tom (12 March 2014). "'It's against all principles of scientific reporting': Thousands of medical papers cite Wikipedia, study says". National Post. Archived from the original on 13 March 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
- ^ a b
- Cohen, Noam (28 July 2009). "Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? Analyze That". ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
- Lilienfeld, Scott (3 August 2009). "The Rorschach-Wikipedia Kerfuffle Continues". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
- White, Patrick (29 July 2009). "Rorschach and Wikipedia: The battle of the inkblots". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
- Schultz, D. S.; Brabender, V. M. (2013). "More Challenges Since Wikipedia: The Effects of Exposure to Internet Information About the Rorschach on Selected Comprehensive System Variables". Journal of Personality Assessment. 95 (2): 149–158. S2CID 21422063.
- Cohen, Noam (28 July 2009). "Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? Analyze That".
- ^ PMID 25498308.
- .
- PMID 24743682.
- ^ "How Wikipedia Data Is Revolutionizing Flu Forecasting". MIT Technology Review. 3 November 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- PMID 25392913.
- ^ "Wikipedia 'foresees virus outbreaks'". BBC News. 13 November 2014. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
- ^ *Madrigal, Alexis (21 July 2009). "Wikipedia Teaches NIH Scientists Wiki Culture – Wired Science". Wired. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
- Garnett, Carla (4 September 2009). "NIH, Wikipedia Join Forces to Improve Online Health Info". NIH Record. Archived from the original on 1 April 2012. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
- ^ "Cancer charity 'tidies' Wikipedia". BBC News. 4 April 2011. Retrieved 6 November 2014.
- ^ "The ILAE Wikipedia Epilepsy Project". www.ILAE.ORG.
- ^ "Collaboration with Wikipedia". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 19 May 2015. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
- ^ "National Institute for Health Research launches Wikimedian in Residence in collaboration with Wikimedia UK". WMUK. 10 December 2021. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
- ^ "Improving Health-Related Content on Wikipedia". community.cochrane.org. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
- ^
- Cohen, Noam (29 September 2013). "Editing Wikipedia Pages for Med School Credit". ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 1 October 2013.
- Bunim, Juliana (26 September 2013). "UCSF First U.S. Medical School to Offer Credit For Wikipedia Articles". ucsf.edu. Retrieved 1 October 2013.
- Beck, Julie (1 October 2013). "Should I Be Getting Health Information From Wikipedia?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
- Cohen, Noam (29 September 2013). "Editing Wikipedia Pages for Med School Credit".