Evaluating the Design and Information of the Top Breast Cancer Web Sites Pamela Whitten, Sandi Smith, Samantha Munday, and Carolyn La Plante Michigan State University Design Features Informational Content Is the sponsor of the website nonprofit or for profit? Is content updated frequently (within the last month? Is a working link provided for a contact person or an address for further information? Do all graphic elements include informational content (implies a traceable, significant, logical connection)? Location of the navigation bar on the homepage. Does the website have any inactive, outdated (“dead”) links? Does the website provide a definition of breast cancer? Does website have a section urging users to evaluate self-image in terms of preventative habits? Does website have a section describing negative consequences for behaviors that increase breast cancer risk? Does website have a section providing access to social support (e.g., chatroom or contact information links)? Does website have a section informing users about environment factors that increase breast cancer risk? Does website have a section for message boards? Does website have a section encouraging readers to adopt healthy prevention behaviors? This publication was made possible by the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Centers grant number U01 ES from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH, DHHS. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIEHS or NCI. No – 67 (83.8%) Yes –13 (16.3%) Introduction The internet is a prominent source of health information for the public. A plethora of studies have already been conducted on the public’s use of the internet to seek information on breast cancer (Thomas et al., 2002) and the quality of breast cancer websites (Hoffman-Goetz & Clarke, 2000). This research seeks to evaluate both the type and range of information, as well as basic use and design features of the top 181 breast cancer websites. Methods A content analysis coding scheme was created by the research team that includes over 100 design and theoretical information elements. Data will provide important information to explain the current strengths and weaknesses of popular breast cancer websites. A summary of the results will offer a prescriptive template for improving the information and design of breast cancer websites for multiple stakeholders. To develop a list of the top breast cancer websites, the three most frequently used search engines (Nielsen/NetRatings, 2006), Google, Yahoo and MSN, were searched using the key words “breast cancer” and “breast cancer environment.” The top one hundred hits from all six searches were then combined into one list. One hundred and seventy-seven websites met the study’s inclusionary criteria. This poster presents initial results for the first 80 websites that have been coded for select variables. It is also worth noting that the first 80 websites consist mostly of websites found on both of the searches or the environment and breast cancer search only. Therefore, these data should be highly representative of websites that deal both with breast cancer and the environment. References Anderson, P. F., Allee, N., Grove, S., & Hill, S. (1999). Website evaluation checklist. Medical Library Association Encyclopedia Guide to Searching and Finding health Information on the Internet. Retrieved June 9, 2006 from Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal directed behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, Bausch, S., & Han, L. (2006). Google accounts for half of all U.S searches in April according to Nielsen/NetRatings. Nielsen/NetRatings Inc. Retrieved June 3, 2006 from netratings.com/pr/pr_ pdf Gustafson, D.H., McTavish, F.M, Stengle, B.D., Hawkins, R., Shaw, B. R., Jones, E., et al. (2005). Use and impact of ehealthsystem by low-income women with breast cancer. Journal of Health Communication, 10, pp Hoffman-Goetz, L. & Clarke, Juanne Nancarrow. (2000). Quality of breast sites on the world wide web. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 91, 4, pp McLachlan, L. (2002). Www cyberguide rating for website content evaluation. McLachlan, L. (2002). Www cyberguide ratings for website design Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back in fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, pp Velicer, W. F., Prochaska, J. O., Fava, J. L., Norman, G. J., Redding, C. A. (1998). Smoking cessation and stress management: Applications of the trastheoretical model of behavior change. Homeostasis, 38, Selected Variable Frequencies Does website have a section explaining how personal prevention habits affect the social environment? Does website have a section presenting reminder cues to prompt healthy breast cancer prevention habits? No – 46 (57.5%) Yes – 34 (42.5%) No – 45 (56.3%) Yes – 35 (43.8%) No-80 (100%) No – 61 (76.3%) Yes – 19 (23.8%) No – 35 (43.8%) Yes – 45 (56.3%) No – 70 (87.5%) Yes – 10 (12.5%) No – 42 (52.5%) Yes – 38 (47.5%) No – 80 (100%) No – 19 (23.8%) Yes – 61 (76.3%) No – 55 (68.8%) Yes – 25 (31.3%) No – 11 (13.3%) Yes – 69 (86.3%) No – 30 (37.5%) Yes – 50 (62.5%) No – 8 (10%) Yes – 72 (90%) Nonprofit – 65 (81.3%) For profit – 15 (18.8%) Conclusions 1.Design Features appear to be incorporated well. 2.Informational Content: 1.Risk statistics and references for social support are present in more than half of the websites. 2.Websites could improve by listing environmental factors that might cause breast cancer and negative consequences of risky behavior, enhancing beliefs that people can change to healthy behaviors, providing reminders to engage in healthy behaviors and prompts to evaluate self image while engaging in risky behaviors, showing that personal habits affect the social environment, and providing message boards to increase social support.. Does the website provide risk statistics? None -2 (2.5%) Top – 16 (20%) Top and bottom – 22 (27.5%) Left – 15 (18.8%) Other – 6 (7.5%) Top and left – 5 (6.3% Top, bottom, and left – 7 (8.8%) Left and bottom – 7 (8.8%)