Website Analysis

1
Website Analysis

• Patient Drug Information Analysis on
  www.depnet.com.au
• By Marianne Gayed 0019310

2
FIRST IMPRESSIONS

• 1. Is the user able to quickly determine the
  basic content of the site?

2. User is able to determine the intended
audience of the site?
3
First impressions.

• The homepage is clearly laid out as can be seen
  below

4
First impressions

• The user quickly realises that the website is
  divided into the five different categories shown
  by the 5 different icons at the top of the page,
  and thereby alerts the user to the range of
  content this site supplies. There are specific
  headings for different types of users (relatives
  vs. patients themselves), which alerts the user
  to the different types of audience this website
  provides information for.

5
RELIABILITY

• 3. Are the aims clear?

4. Does it achieve its aims?
6
RELIABILITY

• 5. Is the information evidence based?

6. Does the website provide good coverage of
information?
7
RELIABILITY

• 7. Is the information relevant?

8
Reliability

• There are specific aims listed under each of the
  5 main icons on the top of the homepage, and
  these are links to pages which succinctly discuss
  these aims to the user. They are set out clearly,
  under several sub-headings, making it easy to
  read. The information does not seem to be
  evidence-based, although seemingly quite
  reliable, which is a major downfall of the
  website. It provides a range of information that
  would be sure to answer any patients drug query,
  all of it being quite relevant to the topic at
  hand.

9
AUTHORITY

• 8. Is it clear who is responsible for the
  contents of the page?

9. Is it clear who wrote the material and are the
author's qualifications for writing on this topic
clearly stated?
10
Authority

• While it is clearly stated that the website was
  written by the Lundbeck Institute, and any
  questions should be directed accordingly, the
  site does not acknowledge individual authors or
  their qualifications. In fact there is a
  disclaimer included on all of the information
  provided by the site.

11
INFORMATION VALUE

• 10. Does it provide a good description of the
  condition or treatment protocol?

11. Does it outline criteria for diagnosis of
condition or criteria for appropriate
prescription of treatment?
12
INFORMATION VALUE

• 12. Does it describe how each treatment works?

13. Does it describe the benefits of each
treatment?
13
INFORMATION VALUE

• 14. Does it describe alternative treatments, or
  other diagnoses possible?

15. Does is detail the typical prognoses of
condition, associated risks treatment risks?
14
INFORMATION VALUE

• 16. Are there any inaccurate or misleading
  descriptions, recommendations?

17. Does it provide contacts for questions,
support groups, or more information?
15
Information value

• While this website gives comprehensive
  information about depression, it fails to mention
  criteria for diagnosis of depression. This could
  be due to the fact that the information on this
  site is aimed at patients and their relatives,
  and not health care professionals.
• This website provides excellent information
  about all the different therapies available on
  the market, from non-pharmacological to
  pharmacological and many of the risks and side
  effects associated with all these different types
  of treatments.

16
Information value cntd

• Even so, while the website goes into such detail
  on these matters, it fails to mention the
  benefits of certain therapies over one another,
  or the aims and treatment goals of antidepressant
  therapy in general.
• The website is very careful not to make
  recommendations the main one is to seek medical
  advice if more information is needed. Several
  contact details to answer any queries are also
  included for the readers convenience.

17
ACCURACY

• 18. Are the sources for any factual information
  clearly listed so they can be verified in another
  source?

19. Is the information free of grammatical,
spelling, and typographical errors?
18
ACCURACY

• 20. Is it clear who has the ultimate
  responsibility for the accuracy of the content of
  the material?

21. If there are charts and/or graphs containing
statistical data, are the charts and/or graphs
clearly labeled and easy to read?
19
Accuracy

• While there is a link for books and other
  sources about depression, there are no references
  listed throughout the website that could verify
  any information provided.
• The information however is clearly understood
  and free of any typographical errors. It is not
  clear which author(s) (and what qualifications
  they possess) are responsible for the information
  provided, as only the corporation responsible was
  sited, accompanying a disclaimer.

20
CURRENCY

• 22. Are there dates on the page to indicate when
  the page was written, first placed on the Web,
  and when it was last revised?

23. If material is presented in graphs and/or
charts, is it clearly stated when the data was
gathered?
21
Currency

• No information about when the page was written,
  last revised, or first posted on the web is
  available. The only dates that are present are
  those that accompany relevant articles on
  depression posted on the website. Besides these
  dates, the amount of dates accompanying drug
  information on this website was found to be
  lacking.

22
PRESENTATION

• 24. Is the information clearly communicated?

25. Is information summarised and/or
bullet-pointed ?
23
PRESENTATION

• 26. Were the lines of type clearly spaced?

27. Are unrelated sections clearly separated?
24
PRESENTATION

• 28. Are diagrams and images labeled and do they
  relate to the subject matter?

29. Is there a single style of design and layout
maintained throughout?
25
Presentation

• Because this is a site designed to provide
  information to patients, the information is set
  out in an easy-to-read layout. A few main points
  are summarised and bulleted, and a few of these
  are also hyper- linked to pages that provide more
  comprehensive details about these main points.
  Even though this is the case, there is a lot of
  extra information provided that could perhaps be
  simplified for the readers of this website.

26
Presentation

• The lines of type are clearly spaced, with more
  spaces separating different concepts and ideas
  presented to the reader. While the website had
  several pictures to complement the layout, none
  of these diagrams or images related to the
  subject matter directly. Most images were
  artistic or abstract photographs that did manage
  to complement the website nicely, even though it
  was irrelevant to subject matter.

27
Presentation

• What was quite effective about this website was
  that it managed to maintain a single style of
  layout all throughout the site, which gives the
  reader a sense of order and a feeling of
  reliability as the information is presented
  succinctly and flows logically, from one point to
  another, throughout the website.

28
APPEARANCE OF TEXT

• 30. Was 12pt font or larger used?(Recommended
  that no less than 10 pt font is used for the main
  body of text)

31. Was a dark typeface on a pale background
used?
29
APPEARANCE OF TEXT

• 32. Was bold used for emphasis only?

33. Were italics not used for long passages?
30
APPEARANCE OF TEXT

• 34. Was underlining avoided ?

35. Was UPPER CASE used sparingly ?
31
Appearance of text

• The website could also be improved by increasing
  the font size of the text used. The authors of
  the website used a font size of 7.5 for the main
  body of text, which is much smaller than the
  recommended font size of 10 or above. The
  appearance of the text however was quite good, as
  a dark typeface was used on a pale background
  making the text, which was rather small, easy to
  read at all times. The authors reserved the bold
  and italics typeface for appropriate titles and
  phrases, as well as using upper case quite
  sparingly, if at all. Underlying was used only to
  indicate hyperlinks to related topics.

32
CONTENT

• 36. Was jargon avoided ?

37. Were acronyms, abbreviations and specialist
terms explained (eg in a glossary)?
33
CONTENT

• 38. Is the information balanced and unbiased?

34
Content

• As the information on this website is directed
  to patients and relatives of patients, it is
  important that they are able to comprehend
  unbiased information, that is easy to understand.
  It was impossible not to mention medical terms
  and related jargon on this website, however, most
  of the time these terms were explained. A
  glossary was included as well, however, it was
  not a very comprehensive list and most of the
  terms were different types of medical disorders,
  and not specific terms relevant to the subject
  matter.

35
FURTHER INFORMATION

• 39. Are there links to other sites that are
  relevant to the users needs/ purposes?

40. Are the links to other sites current and
working properly ?
36
Further Information

• A very impressive aspect of this website are the
  number of links included for the users personal
  use. These links are all very relevant and
  address the subject at hand, as well as being
  up-to-date and working properly. There is however
  a disclaimer included on the content of the links
  by the Lundbeck Institute.

37
OVERALL RATING OF THE PUBLICATION

• Total score 151/200 (Very good!)
• 41. Based on the answers to all of the above
  questions, rate the overall quality of the
  publication as a source of information about
  treatment choices

38
Comment on the overall rating

• www.depnet.com.au is a site that provides the
  patient with very relevant drug information in an
  easy-to-read and concise manner. It is displayed
  in an logical and ordered layout, which makes it
  very user friendly when searching for specific
  drug information. It includes several links to
  relevant sites, as well as many hyperlinks that
  provide the user with further comprehensive
  information if desired.

39
Comment on the overall rating

• This website has a few downfalls. These include
  a lack of references, as it fails to mention any
  of these or any specific authors, or their
  qualifications, that helped compile the
  information. Doubtfulness of the reliability of
  the information may arise as a result.

40
Comment on the overall rating

• There also seems to be a lack of relevant graphs
  and images, both of which could be used as as
  visual aids to implement the learning process.
  The font size could also be increased, which
  would help improve the appearance of the website
  thus improving the users opinion of this
  website overall.