The results of the study indicated that HONcode criteria were present in only 10.49% of Persian websites for chronic diseases. Previous research has shown that HONcode indices are less emphasized in Persian health websites (
16,
20). For example, none of the Persian language websites on Ebola meet all eight HONcode criteria (
16). Additionally, the present study highlighted the difficulty of assessing the true quality of Persian websites for chronic diseases using these criteria. Regarding non-Persian websites, some researchers found that many Internet-based resources do not achieve an acceptable score based on these criteria. For instance, only 35% of Yahoo directory pages meet some of the information evaluation criteria in the HONcode tool (
21).
Furthermore, the evaluated websites achieved an average of 39.59% of the Discern criteria. Previous research demonstrated the inappropriateness of using Discern criteria to evaluate the quality of Persian websites. Zahedi et al. found a mean score of 89.41% for Persian addiction websites (
19). Some researchers emphasized that ad insertion policies should be clear and distinct from the main content to prevent confusion among ordinary users (
16,
22,
23). Additionally, the use of HONcode, Discern, and Silberg tools for examining the quality of information on Persian chronic disease websites was challenging and did not yield convergent results. Previous studies have reported the difficulty of evaluating the quality of health website pages and the lack of efficiency in detecting incorrect information using current health website evaluation tools (
12,
24,
25). Despite the high number of health information quality evaluation tools, only a few can be effectively utilized by the public (
26,
27).
Based on the results of the present study, the HONcode, Discern, and Silberg tools are not suitable criteria for judging the quality of information on Persian websites for chronic diseases. Some researchers have mentioned that tools for evaluating Internet health information quality are moving towards different and unknown goals, despite developing in the same direction (
28). Additionally, the results of the present study showed no significant positive correlation between the HONcode and Discern criteria for examining the intended websites, while the Discern criteria were positively and significantly correlated with the Silberg criteria. Furthermore, a positive correlation was observed between HONcode and Silberg criteria, although it was insignificant. However, some researchers have noted the lack of a significant positive correlation between information quality criteria and appearance indices on Persian web pages related to public health (
17,
18,
20). According to Robbins, trust in health websites is not significantly related to their appearance indices (
29).
5.1. Conclusions
The results of the present study show that the HONcode, Discern, and Silberg tools are inappropriate for evaluating Persian websites for chronic diseases. Additionally, no significant positive correlation was found between the HONcode and Discern criteria for evaluating the intended websites, while the Discern criteria were significantly and positively related to the Silberg criteria. However, a positive and insignificant correlation was observed between the HONcode and Silberg criteria. It is worth noting that the use of the HONcode, Silberg, and Discern tools for evaluating public health information quality requires necessary expertise, which ordinary users may not possess. Therefore, measures should be taken to train and empower users to enhance their health literacy levels.
5.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies
This study has several limitations.
(1) The study used the first 100 web pages resulting from a single search term in Google. This method has limitations as the sample of 14 websites was not based on a sample size calculation, but conducting such a calculation would have been extremely time-consuming and beyond the scope of this study.
(2) The Internet constantly changes, so each time a search term is entered into a search engine, the results may vary slightly. However, this method makes our study more generalizable because patients are likely to perform only a single search and are unlikely to use the same search term multiple times to find different websites.
(3) The results of the Google search in this study only produced Persian-language websites, and this study only analyzed websites in Persian (non-Persian-language websites were excluded).
(4) Using ten selected keywords as the search terms, rather than multiple search terms that patients might use, was another limitation.
(5) Using websites from a single search engine could potentially impact the results since other websites of different quality may have been missed. However, this is unlikely as a relatively large sample was used, containing websites that may have appeared in other search engines.
(6) Due to the subjective nature of some criteria in the existing tools, examiner bias could have impacted the results.
Based on the findings of this study, further research should be conducted on evaluating Persian health websites and applying different evaluation checklists, as well as understanding the criteria and indices of health content quality. Users should first be empowered and trained to increase their health literacy levels, and then health organizations can introduce credible resources to the public. The following suggestions are proposed for future research:
(1) Evaluate how Persian language users (and users of other languages) judge health information quality.
(2) Develop codes of conduct to help the authors, owners, and users of health websites.
(3) Define native quality labels for different languages to mark credible websites.