HealthWeb Navigator

Content Review Refresher

 3 Modes of Writing
 Summary
 Description
 Analysis
 Summary
 A condensed retelling of some larger whole.
 Uses broad, general terms.
 Emphasis on objectivity and concision.
 Description
 Specific statements, practices, or details.
 More concrete than summary.
 Emphasis on particulars.
 What’s Missing?
 Summary: Abstract and concise.
 Description: Precise and detailed.
 Neither offer’s the speaker’s insight on information
conveyed.
 Analysis
 The process of breaking down a text into component
parts and examining them separately to speak about
the whole.

 Says more than what’s apparent.

 Process of investigation, contemplation, and
connection.
 Summary Review

“The CDC is a government organization that fights

disease, whether foreign or domestic, through research. It
protects people from health threats and uses critical
science in response to crises. This section of the website
is devoted to men’s health topics.”
 Descriptive Review

“The CDC Men’s Health page discusses men’s health

topics. Users can browse the collection using a left-hand
toolbar. The material is geared toward men of all ages
and is sponsored by the CDC. The content provides
practical information like facts, statistics, and articles
about conditions affecting men. The statistics section is
quite large. I would recommend this website to others.”
 Analytical Review #1
“The Men’s health section of the CDC website has four major
categories, none of which is explored in any real depth. For
instance, the “Healthy Living” category lists only four resources:
a downloadable calendar lacking any health substance, tips for
healthy living (which leads to a dead page), health reminders
for safe Super Bowl celebrations, and summer health tips.
These topics seem randomly assigned to this CDC subsection
and just barely relate to men’s health. There is no content on
prostate cancer, cardiac disease, alcoholism, or other
preventive health measures that speak specifically to men’s
health issues. The most substantial portion of this page is its
collection of .pdf publications relating the leading causes of
death among men. While these may be interesting to
researchers, ultimately they don’t serve much practical purpose
for consumers, as they are mostly statistics without
commentary.”
 Analytical Review #2
“Although the CDC is a respected governmental entity,
users will not find links to external sources or references
here to assess the content’s credibility. Further, there is no
comprehensive listing of topics specific to men’s health
available to users. The page’s “Featured Video” section
contains a single video with no method to search previous
entries, and the “Test Your Knowledge” section collects
random quizzes that aren’t specific or even related to men’s
health (for instance, one quiz titled “Kids and Rabies”). This
site’s content provides little use to consumers and seems
randomly assigned to the site.”
 Takeaway
 Analysis always makes an attempt to justify the HOWs
and WHYs of whatever judgments the writer makes.

 Attempts to “get beneath the surface.”

 Provides evidence that informs interpretation.
 Usability vs. Content
Usability Concerns Content Concerns
• Understandability • Currency
• Ease of use • Accuracy
• Audience appropriateness • Completeness
• Visual design/appeal • Depth
• Navigation
• Speed
 Content Currency
 Look for dates of
publication and/or
revision.
 Is content in-line with
contemporary medical
thought?
 How current is the
research?
 How relevant is this
information to TODAY’s audience?
 Content Accuracy
 Does the website promote
evidence-based information?
 Does it mislead users, sell
“snake oil” treatments,
or falsely interpret data?
 Are there potential
conflicts of interest
or profit-motives
influencing the content?
 How correct are the site’s claims?
 Content Completeness
 Does the site do a good job
covering all aspects of
a given health topic?
 A certain topics,
branches, or debates
missing?
 Will the reader need to
visit other resources
for understanding?
 How self-contained is
the site’s information?
 Content Depth
 Does the material go
into sufficient detail?

 Is the website worth

visiting based on its
level of nuance?

 How useful is the site

as a health resource?
 Tips for Content Review
 Aim for specificity
 Avoid “It should/shouldn’t be on HWN”
 Keep your sights on content, not usability
 Move beyond like/dislike
 Strive for fair, insightful objectivity…
 ...But don’t be afraid to make judgements