It is commendable that
WHO wants to put some time and effort into this issue, but there are several huge
problems.The main thing that is *essential* at this stage is a longer consultation
time. In addition to previous comments, I would say:
1.It takes time, even in these
days of cyberspace, for messages to truly travel the world. The US population is
an important one, but there are millions of us who live elsewhere who have just as
much of an interest. I've only just heard about this initiative and I am an English
speaker,information professional, and have a particular issue in quality issues and
health information.
2. Please can someone post a 'plain English' summary of this
proposal to make it more accessible? The application materials are really difficult
to understand, and that could obstruct this consultation process.
3. The issue
of health information quality measurement is an *enormous* problem, both in how to
do it (if doing it) and in all the initiatives currently underway. Please read an
excellent article in the British Medical Journal on this (and the replies). Free
full text at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/843
Give these initiatives
a little longer to come out with something clearer (not that it will be The Solution).
And
the content manager of a website which has been offering links to 'quality checked'
websites in the UK (funded by the National Health Service) for some time states that:
'I estimate that establishing and running a comprehensive kitemarking system
for patient information in the UK would involve tens if not hundreds of people including
subject experts, information professionals, designers etc. It would probably cost
many millions of pounds and involve untold bureaucracy.'
4. Given all the other
initiatives going on, and the huge costs of setting up and maintaining .health, why
doesnt WHO put its resources into one of the quality initiatives instead (as mentioned
in earlier messages eg Health on the Net, OMNI, etc etc)? I have put one url below
to show just one example of what is already happening.
Maybe WHO could also work
on making a gateway more useful and accessible to developing countries? For example,
by developing content on sites such as local information, or providing translation
of the information on websites WHO consider really useful into more languages, or
culturally appropriate formats. And then linking to these from whatever gateway(s)
they choose to support(or one they create, if they must),and publicising the existence
of the gateway widely around the world.
The WHO has the local contacts and expertise
worldwide which most organisations couldnt dream of. And also the opportunity (and
responsibility?) to make information more accessible to the many people excluded
by the current English language/developed countries emphasis of health websites.
Isnt
that better than spending limited funds on the administration of .health - maybe
including lawyers fees when being sued by prosperous websites fighting over the allocation
of sex.health (or cancer.health)?! I do appreciate their concern on this issue and
the initiative, but please give it more time and consider different actions to meet
the health information needs of people around the world
Fiona McLean (UK)