Evaluación de la calidad de las webs de centros de farmacoeconomía y economía de la salud en Internet mediante un cuestionario validado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluar la calidad de los sitios web de centros y organizaciones sobre temas farmacoeconómicos de los países de la Unión Europea, Estados Unidos y Canadá, mediante un sistema validado con criterios explícitos. Identificación en el web de instituciones, centros relacionados con farmacoeconomía y economía de la salud en el ámbito de los 24 países de la OCDE desde el año 1999, a través de buscadores mediante palabras clave predeterminadas. Diseño y validación de un cuestionario de calidad de la información sanitaria contenida en Internet según las normas establecidas en la bibliografía. Evaluación de la calidad de los centros de farmacoeconomía y economía de la salud a través de este cuestionario. En 23 de los 26 ítems que contiene el cuestionario validado, la Q de Cochran figura como estadísticamente significativa. El coeficiente de fiabilidad obtenido en el cuestionario fue de 0,90 y el valor obtenido en la correlación de Pearson fue de 0,812. Los 33 centros de farmacoeconomía y economía de la salud evaluados pueden dividirse en 3 subgrupos de acuerdo con las puntuaciones obtenidas en el cuestionario: centros de alta calidad, calidad media, subgrupo al que pertenece la mayoría de los centros, y calidad baja. Los centros que se corresponden con el subgrupo de alta calidad son: Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Centre for Health Economics, Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, Health Economics Research Unit, The Institute of Health Economics y Health Economics Resource Center. Los criterios incluidos en el cuestionario que son los más utilizados en la evaluación de la calidad de páginas web sanitarias son: credibilidad, contenido, descripción, vínculos, diseño, interactividad y salvaguarda. La calidad de sitios web de centros relacionados con farmacoeconomía y economía de la salud analizados en este trabajo mediante los criterios establecidos en el cuestionario varía desde un 30,4% hasta un 79,8%. Es necesario un sistema validado, con criterios explícitos, para evaluar la calidad de la información sanitaria en Internet. To evaluate the quality of websites of pharmacoeconomics centers and organizations in the countries of the European Union, the United States and Canada through a validated system with explicit criteria. The websites of institutions and centers related to pharmacoeconomics and health economics in the 24 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) were identified through browsers. Twentyfour predetermined key words were used. A questionnaire on the quality of the information on health was designed and validated according to standards established in literature. Using this questionnaire, we evaluated the quality of the pharmacoeconomics and health economics centers. In 23 of the 26 items of the validated questionnaire, Cochran's Q was statistically significant. The coefficient of reliability obtained in the questionnaire was 0.90 and the value obtained in Pearson's correlation was 0.812. The 33 pharmacoeconomics and health economics centers evaluated were divided into three subgroups according to the scores obtained on the questionnaire: centers of high quality, average quality (the majority), and low quality. The centers in the high-quality subgroup were: the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, the Centre for Health Economics, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Health Economics Research Unit, the Institute of Health Economics and the Health Economics Resource Center. The criteria included in the questionnaire used to evaluate the quality of websites on health were: credibility, content, description, links, design, interactivity and safeguards. The quality of the websites of centers related to pharmacoeconomics and health economics analyzed in this study using the criteria established in the questionnaire varied from 30.4% to 79.8%. A validated system with explicit criteria is required to evaluate the quality of information on health available on the Internet
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".