Title

醫院網站資訊透明度與互動性之調查

Translated Titles

Information Transparency and Interactivity in Hospital Websites

DOI

10.6563/TJHS.2005.7(3).7

Authors

洪麗真(Li-Chen Hung)

Key Words

醫院網站 ; 透明度 ; 互動性 ; Hospital websites ; transparency ; interactivity

PublicationName

醫護科技學刊

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

7卷3期(2005 / 07 / 01)

Page #

294 - 306

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本研究期望藉由醫院網站資訊透明度與互動性之調查,以協助不同特性之醫院在網站建構時能提供更豐富、更具即時性的醫療資訊與服務。網站評量採用透明度與互動性兩大指標,評量表的發展係參考美國三所大學學生聯合組成的網路政策研究小組(Cyberspace Policy Research Group, CyPRG)發展出的「網站屬性評量系統」,再依本研究目的加以修改後製定而成。評量表初稿經專家效度評量與項目分析後,共保留24題細項作為本研究評量指標。研究結果發現,台灣地區級以上醫院521家中,設有網站之醫院計有251家,總架設率達48.2%。進一步交叉分析後,我們有以下發現:1.不同層級、不同權屬別的醫院網站在資訊透明度與互動性上有顯著差異。2.醫院網站依透明度與互動性表現可分為以下四個集群,集群一:組織資訊缺乏型、集群二:民眾權益至上型、集群三:業務資訊充足型、集群四:組織資訊充足型。3.各集群醫院網站的特性在層級別與權屬別上有顯著的差異。本文中亦針對不同集群特質的醫院,提出改善的建議。

English Abstract

Purpose: This study provides different hospital types with recommendations for establishing well-organized websites with abundant and up-to-date medical information and services. Method: Transparency and interactivity were used as the main indicators for website evaluation. The evaluation charts were made and modified based on the Website Attribute Evaluation System (WAES), developed by the U.S. Cyberspace Policy Research Group (CyPRG). After professional effectiveness evaluation and item analysis,. 24 sub-items were selected as the evaluation indicators in the study. Result: The analytical results showed that 251 out of 521 regional hospitals and above in Taiwan have established websites, a proportion of 48.2 percent. Through cross analysis, this study gathered the following findings: 1. Information transparency and interactivity differed significantly among hospital websites of different levels and affiliations. 2. Based on information transparency and interactivity, hospital websites could be classified into four categories. The first category is the ”deficiency of organization information” type, the second category is the ”supremeness of public rights” type, the third category is the ”abundance of business information” type, and the fourth category is the ”abundance of organization information” type. 3. The above four categories differed significantly in terms of the features of hospital websites of different levels and affiliations. Besides, this study proposed recommendations for hospitals according to the category to which they belonged.

Topic Category 醫藥衛生 > 預防保健與衛生學
醫藥衛生 > 社會醫學
Reference
  1. 蔡欣玲(2002)。建構護理網站評值量表之前驅研究。醫護科技學刊,5(2),126-184。
    連結:
  2. Adelhard, K.,Obst, O.(1999).Evaluation of medical interest sites.Methods of Information in Medicine,38(2),75-79.
  3. How to recognize information Web page
  4. Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet
  5. Brower, H.(1996).Internet sees growth of unverified health claims.British Medical Journal,313,497.
  6. Cooke, A.(1999).Quality of health and medical information on the Internet.Clinical Performance and Quality Healyh Care,7(4),178-187.
  7. The Cyberspace Policy Research Group (CyPRG), at the Univ
  8. Dragulanescu, N. G.(2002).Website Quality Evaluation: Criteria and Tools.International information & Library Review,34,247-254.
  9. Eysenbach G.,Powell J.,Kuss(2002).Empirical studied assessing the quality of information for consumers on the World Wide Web: A systematic review.JAMA,287,2691-2700.
  10. Expect of the 8th HON`s survey of health and medicine internet users
  11. Pearle, L.,Dorman, S.(1997).Evaluating health-related Web sites.The Journal of School Health,67,232-235.
  12. Journal of Medical Internet Research
  13. Sibergy, W.,Lundberg, G.,Mustachio, R.(1997).Assessing, Controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: covenant lector reviewer: Let the reader and buyer beware.Journal of the American Medical Association,277,1244-1245.
  14. Stephen, M.(1998).The quality of medical information on the Internet: A new public concern.Arc hired Ophthalmology,116(12),1663-1335.
  15. The American Public Health Association(2001).Criteria for Assessing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet.American Journal of Public Health,91(3),513-514.
  16. 車憶敏(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。陽明大學醫務管理研究所。
  17. 台灣寬頻網路使用調查
  18. 許麗齡(2004)。健康醫療網站評鑑指標之建立。護理雜誌,51(3),47-52。
Times Cited
  1. 林雋雯(2006)。以病人為中心之角度探討教學醫院網站應用現況。亞洲大學健康管理研究所學位論文。2006。1-146。
  2. 王姿晴(2007)。文化創意產業網站品質評估之研究。中央大學客家政治經濟研究所學位論文。2007。1-280。
  3. 翁貴美(2008)。客家數位學習推動成效之研究—以哈客網路學院與客語能力認證網為例。中央大學客家政治經濟與政策研究所在職碩士專班學位論文。2008。1-236。