Written Assignment #3: Evaluation of a Web 2.0 Tool with Lessons Learned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                    Written Assignment #3: Evaluation of a Web 2.0 Tool                                                      

                                                 
                                                    Alanna M. Schauer

                                              Thomas Edison State College

 

 

                                                            Abstract

Web 2.0 tools are designed to interact and collaborate with the social media, blogging, and wiki sites. Web 2.0 software creates interactive areas for consumers to create and write responses and post photographs and videos and not just retrieve information. This paper describes the evaluation of a Web 2.0 tool, a mashup called HealthMap.org. There were five criteria used to evaluate this Web 2.0 tool. These criteria were cost, access to the tool, usability of the tool, ability to set the security for personal setting, and generalization. A rationale was described for each criterion discussed in the paper. The paper also includes the writer's evaluation of the Web 2.0 tool HealthMap.org.  The paper details the evaluation of each criteria and their mashup efficacy after reviewing the webtool. The paper includes examples of the Web 2.0 potential use of healthcare delivery utilizing the concepts of the mashup. The paper also includes the potential issues and any benefits from utilizing the Web 2.0 tool. 

                     Written Assignment #3: Evaluation of a Web 2.0 Tool                                                      

                                                        Introduction

          Web 2.0 tools are designed to interact and collaborate with the social media, blogging, and wiki sites. Web 2.0 software creates interactive areas for consumers to create and write responses and post photographs and videos and not just retrieve information. Many webtools are available have educational benefit and it is important to have the right tool for the right task. In looking for criteria to evaluate the Web 2.0 tools, the Sloan Consortium was discovered.  Upon review of their suggested top five criterions, incorporation of a few criterions went into this evaluation of the mashup called HealthMap (Skiba, 2007). The five criteria for evaluating the Web 2.0 tool HealthMap are the cost of the tool, access to the tool, usability of the tool, the ability to set the security for personal settings, and generalization to others.

                                                  Review of Criteria

Cost- There is no cost to using HealthMap.org. Upon entering the site, it asks for permission to use locator function. It is important to be aware of any cost to the consumer before you enter a web tool and potentially be trapped into a purchase before you review the site.

Access to the Tool- Access is through the internet web address and the map design to visualize the area located on your computer. It is important to determine if access is easy and available to all persons entering the site. You do not have to enter your personal information to review this tool initially.

Usability of the Tool -The tool is simple to read the map and identify the area of outbreak.  It allows you to look at other areas and countries. There are simple functions to make a list of all the infections disease near you instead of hovering over each dot pinned to the map location.  You can easily add an alert by filling in the form on the map where you know an outbreak has occurred. This requires personal information. It is important to have a Web 2.0 tool that is easy to navigate and has advanced functionality.

Ability to Set the Security for Personal Settings-There is no ability to set security setting on this webtool. You do however choose your current location and can choose another area as well. This criterion is important to some webtools as security is vital and may be crucial in the future to HealthMap. A disgruntled person can place an alert about someone without much support and cause harm and embarrassment.

Generalization- Generalization is the application of this webtool to other illness of the world or other health issues. This webtool has generalization as one of the reviewers mentioned that adding Flu Near You to this tool would add additional information and be beneficial.

                                         Evaluation of the Web 2.0 Tool

       A group of researchers, epidemiologists and software developers at Boston Children's Hospital created the mashup called HealthMap. The website is HealthMap.org and the mobile application is Outbreaks Near Me. These mashup provide real time information in delivering information on infectious diseases to individuals, groups or governmental agencies. Updates are continuous through monitoring, collecting and disseminating the latest global health information. "HealthMap brings together disparate data sources, including online news aggregators, eyewitness reports, expert-curated discussions and validated official reports, to achieve a unified and comprehensive view of the current global state of infectious diseases and their effect on human and animal health," (HealthMap, 2012, para 4.).   It provides information in nine different languages to increase the population of interested consumers.

            It can be a useful tool but needs the ability of access in foreign countries. It was helpful to be able to locate hepatitis C and meningitis outbreaks in our region. Since it is real time, there are always new updates and current information. The writer feels this is a starting point, which can have more information built onto this Web 2.0 tool.

                                   Evaluation of the Efficacy of Criteria

            The criterion of cost was appropriate and effective to evaluate.  The criterion access to the tool was also appropriate and effective as it was easy to get on the site and there was no personal information until you wanted to add an alert.  Usability of the tool was a very important criterion because if a web tool is not easy to navigate it will deter consumers. Security settings are not required on this site but they need to be utilized when adding an alert.  This was an effective criterion because "as with most Web-based initiatives, security is a concern," (Taft, 2008, pg.1).  There is a sMash, short for secure mashup by IBM, which would be beneficial. Generalization is also very important criterion for evaluation because this will make this tool more widespread.

                             Potential Use of Web Tool in Delivering Healthcare

            HeathMap.org has a specific purpose currently but has the potential to have many other features applied to this mashup. "Mapping mashups use online mapping services, such as those offered by Google (http://maps.), HealthMap (http://healthmap.org/), the Global disease alert mapping system, is a good example of a health-related geofeed in action," Kamel Boulos, & Wheeler, 2007, pg. 10.).  Another application can be weather alerts for people with serious asthma when the fog levels are elevated or the air quality is poor. This would entail collaborating with the National Weather Service.

            Potential issues can be that sexually transmitted diseases can be entered and they can be done out of spite if a scorned person (Golijan, 2009). The benefits are there are many potential applications that can be applied in the future to this Web 2.0 tool.                           

                                                          Lessons Learned     

            This was an interesting assignment as I had never heard of a mashup and I was unaware of what it was and how it fit into the concept of a Web 2.0 tool.   Upon reviewing the mashup HealthMap.org, I realized that there were many potential uses that can be added to this tool. It was simple and clearly marked and useful for travelers trying to prepare for travel. It was also interesting upon reading the reviews that there was no security feature when adding an alert and this can be problematic in the future. Someone can add outbreaks using bogus emails and cause a problem.     

                                                          References                                                          

Golijan, R. (2009, September 1). Healthmap app will tell you how diseased your neighborhood     is. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/5350585/healthmap-app-will-tell-you-how- diseased-your-neighborhood-is

Healthmap: Outbreaks near me. (2012, April 12). Retrieved from   https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.duethealth.healthmap&hl=en

Kamel Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information &       Libraries Journal, 24(1). doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x

Skiba, D. J. (2007). Nursing Education 2.0: Are Mashups Useful for Nursing Education?.             Nursing Education Perspectives, 28(5).

Taft, D. K. (2008). IBM 'SMashes' Web 2.0 security risks. E-Week, 25(10).

Written Assignment #3 topic

I was planning on doing my Web 2.0 tool on Mashups. I hope tis is okay.

Thanks, Alanna

Consumer Data Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xYfgKOG-aE


         The writer learned that people have really adopted the functions of the internet and the autonomy it provides in obtaining health information. They have incorporated the internet as part of the tools utilized in their medical plan and future treatment modalities. The internet provides freedom to learn and manage their health as they desire. The writer learned that the statistics presented in the readings have expanded and are much higher as the years advance. These numbers will continue to grow, as the internet usage will continue to be a vital tool in healthcare education and management. 
       This assignment was thought provoking. You had to analyze the data collected and create a format that was capable of displaying the results as compared to the survery data. The readings supported many of the survey results while some of the questions the writer chose were not part of the articles.
        Creating a video was a challenge and I am sorry about the choice of music as it was all that I could utilize from my files. I never thought I would ever have my name on You Tube.

Consumer Assessment - Part 1: Interview Schedule and Data Collection/ Alanna Schauer

Have you used the internet to look up information about a physical illness?

Have you used the internet to look up information about a mental illness?

Have you ever participated in an online support group?

Have you ever used the Internet to prepare a list of questions for doctor?

Have you ever used the Internet prior to office visit?

Did you use the Internet to locate health information after a visiting with a healthcare provider?

Have you ever communicated with your physician by email?

Have you ever researched medications on line?

Have you ever bought medications or vitamins online?

Have you ever asked for advice from an online physician?

Have you ever researched information on a sensitive topic?

Do you have a set of medical Web sites you use to retrieve healthcare-related information?

Comparative Results from Readings and Survey

Questions	Results from Eysenbach  Reading	Results from Campbell Reading	Results from Interview/Survey
Have you used the internet to look up information about a physical illness?	91%	86%	100%
Have you used the internet to look up information about a mental illness?	26%		90%
Have you ever participated in an online support group?	9%		0%
Have you ever used the Internet to prepare a list of questions for the doctor?		34.60%	40%
Have you ever used the Internet prior to a physician's office visit?		44.20%	60%
Did you use the Internet to locate health information after a visiting with a healthcare provider?		36.50%	70%
Have you ever communicated with your physician by email?	9%		40%
Have you ever researched medications on line?		31%	90%
Have you ever bought medications or vitamins online?	10%		20%

Analysis

            The first question about using the internet to look up information about a physical illness had similar percentages to the results of the required readings. The survey group was one hundred percent for using the internet to look up information about a physical illness. The statistics from both readings were ninety-one and eighty-six percent each. The results of the comparison were statistically close. The results provide support to the percentages stated in the readings.  The question of specific medical web sites used to retrieve healthcare-related information resulted in nearly equal results of forty-eight and fifty percent. The survey question supported the results obtained from the readings. The results obtained from surveying the sample of ten people about making a list of question for the physician from the internet yielded a very close result.  Thirty-four, point six percent from the readings and forty percent from the survey produce a very narrow margin of difference.

            The questions about purchasing vitamins or medications online, asking advice from an online physician, and participating in an online support group had results that were close in comparison with a minimal margin of error. Two survey questions (participating in an online support group and asking advice from an online physician) yielded zero percent. The class readings obtained nine percent for the online support group and ten percent for the asking advice from an online physician. These results are statistically similar. The last question about purchasing medications online yielded a twenty percent results from the survey as compared to the ten percent from the articles.  This is fifty percent difference and has statistical significance. Medications and vitamin purchases online are a common concept currently but not twelve years ago.

            Several questions were outliers from the results given in the class articles. In the survey, asking about researching information on a sensitive topic resulted in ninety percent stating they did seek out information on sensitive matters when the class articles stated the results were sixteen percent. Another question was researching medications online, which surveyed at ninety percent but was stated to be thirty-one percent. This is a significant disparity explained by the large difference in timeframe.  There was not a lot of information about medication available on the internet for laypersons in 2005. The same goes for searching out mental health issues.  Now we are capable of gaining patient education and signs and symptoms of mental health problems online but this was not available in 2001 or 2005 to this level for non-medical consumers.

            The answer may be because the information from Eysenbach (2001) was published in 2001 and Campbell's (2005) in 2005 and now the internet has become a standard tool in seeking health information in 2013. Many more people are searching all types of information on the internet especially with the advent of smart phone technology. It is simpler to gain access to the internet and allows greater volume of people to use simultaneously and without a large financial outlay. With high-speed internet and fiberoptic cable, capacity for information search has exploded and enabled more people to utilize the internet.  

            The survey sample was five women and five men to eliminate gender disparity. The ages of the survey group were from twenty years of age until sixty-five. The median age was thirty-one and a half. The surveyors being on the lower end of the age spectrum facilitates frequent use of the internet and therefore higher percentages with internet use. Another aspect of the survey group was whether they had children with illnesses or they themselves have had illness. Fifty percent of the survey group had children and additional twenty percent had illness themselves and therefore have used the internet for various information seeking issues. This would encourage more frequent searches and information seeking then person with no current health issues.

                                                     Learning Statement

            The writer learned that people have really adopted the functions of the internet and the autonomy it provides in obtaining health information. They have incorporated the internet as part of the tools utilized in their medical plan and future treatment modalities. The internet provides freedom to learn and manage their health as they desire. The writer learned that the statistics presented in the readings have expanded and are much higher as the years advance. These numbers will continue to grow, as the internet usage will continue to be a vital tool in healthcare education and management

                                                           Conclusion

The internet can assist in disseminating health information to the public and improve health information education. Many websites available attempt to educate the public with illness management, diet education, and Chat rooms. Some professionals feel the internet does not provide quality information but other feel it compares equally to the information provided by the media. Studies are not helpful guides because they are not consistent or do not use the same conceptual framework and therefore have no external validity or generalization. "The rapid development of medical information on the Internet raises the issue of its quality and of potential dangers related to its erroneous or unsuitable use," (Benigeri & Pluye, 2003, pg. 382).                                              

                                                         References

Benigeri, M., & Pluye, P. (2003). Shortcomings of health information on the internet. Oxford Journals, 18(4), Retrieved from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/381.full

Campbell, R. J. (2005). Consumer informatics: Elderly persons and the internet. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 2(2), Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2047318/pdf/phim0002-0002.pdf

Eysenbach, G. (2001). Consumer health informatics. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/eysen/eysenbach-consumer-health-informatics