One way to sell a health brand...
HUMOR!
All-Bran Helps You Drop A Load
http://www.adgabber.com/video/video/show?id=546804%3AVideo%3A20528
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Soldiers of Christ Commence Crusade Into Second Life
Soldiers of Christ Commence Crusade Into Second Life
The Jesuits, an order of Catholic priests founded in the 1500s, have decided to make Second Life their latest site of evangelical expansion.
"Second Life is not simply a 'closed' phenomenon," writes Father Spadaro of the Jesuits, who outlined a detailed plan on the benefits and hazards of the virtual world, as well as instructions on becoming a resident. "It is a real living environment that every day extends its frontiers and increases the number of residents. We cannot close our eyes to it."
After smut trades and regulation came barging through the doors, it was only a matter of time before religion came a-knocking gently.
Or not.
Morgan Webb Launches "Webb Alert" Web Show
Forget Rocketboom -- here comes Morgan Webb – the X-Play host (named one of FHM’s “sexiest women”) now has her own online show about the latest online trends… and I have to say, she does a great job. The concept? What if you missed one day of blog headlines – would you ever be able to catch up? Now with Morgan Webb’s “Webb Alert” you can simply watch a 5 minute episode online and get all the top headlines from “around the net”. She’s sharp. Fast. Concise. Funny. Anyway, go see the debut episode for yourself.
ePharmaceutical and Informa Launch "Compliance Speedway" for Pharmaceutical Sales Professionals
OVERVIEW
Compliance Speedway is a competitive board game that uses a racing theme to reinforce compliance knowledge for sales professionals within the pharmaceutical industry.
The game meets two primary objectives: to reinforce a player's knowledge about the basics of compliance laws and to allow players to apply their knowledge in contextual scenarios that reinforce their understanding of the nuances of compliance issues. The game is available as a turnkey purchase off the shelf and offers clients an option for customization.
| ePharmaceutical and Informa's Compliance Speedway | |||
|
PLAYING THE GAME (Please click on links to download illustrations):
Complete instructions are included. Players advance around the board by rolling the die, landing on a color-coded square, and successfully answering questions from one of four compliance related topics: Laws, Guidelines, Lingo, and Do or Don't. Players can also land on a Pit Stop square, which requires them to move off the track and into the Pit. To get back onto the track, they must answer a scenario-based question. Players remain in the Pit until they answer a question correctly. The first player to correctly answer two questions from each topic and one scenario-based question wins the game.
The optimal number of participants per board is between 2 and 5 players or small teams. However, utilizing a projected image of the game board at the front of the room, will allow more teams of participants to be accommodated.
CUSTOMIZATION OPPORTUNITIES
All questions may be customized to meet specific training needs for an additional development and production fee.
Prescription for Some of Web's Top Health Info Sites: Cut the Commercials
Prescription for Some of Web's Top Health Info Sites: Cut the Commercials
PR Newswire via NewsEdge Corporation :
Six Clear Choices for Best Health Info Among Web's Top 20; Five Sites Rate Mediocre or Worse
YONKERS, N.Y., July 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Raters scored six of the Web's most popular health information sites as excellent in ratings released today by Consumer Reports WebWatch and the Health Improvement Institute, while five scored mediocre or worse.
"The best sites make the reader the number one priority -- depth and quality of information, separation of advertising from the articles, and ease of use follow from that priority," said Beau Brendler, Consumer Reports WebWatch's director. "We're gratified to see sites making improvements in those areas most important to users' trust and perception of credibility."
Three of the six top-rated sites are published by non-profit organizations, three for-profit. Both the lowest-rated sites are for-profit. The 12 raters who tested the sites include medical doctors, health care industry executives, medical librarians and health Web site senior producers and executives. A three-person committee reviewed their qualifications to be raters.
"Consumers need to know which websites offer the most reliable health information," said Peter Goldschmidt, President and Founder of the Health Improvement Institute. "Consumers should choose websites with strong contents and sound editorial policies and procedures. These ratings enable such choices."
Results:
-- Of the 20 sites rated, six were given the highest score, "Excellent;" four received a "Very Good" rating; five were given a rating of "Good;" three sites were rated "Fair;" and two received the lowest rating, "Poor."
-- The best sites offered a clear distinction between editorial content and sponsored content.
-- Sites rated "Excellent" included unbiased, peer-reviewed content written by health professionals.
-- Sites rated "Fair" and "Poor" often failed to disclose that health content and surveys were sponsored by advertisers, published "sponsored content" that did not appear distinct from site content, or did not clearly display policies to correct false, misleading or incorrect information.
Methodology:
Using a tool based on WebWatch's guidelines for Web site credibility and HII criteria for health information, a panel of health and medical experts examined 20 sites in-depth over a period of more than one month, then rated each using established Consumer Reports-style methods and the familiar trademarked symbols. The list was determined using Nielsen//NetRatings and WebWatch data.
Overall ratings scores were determined from ten different attributes, including identity, advertising and sponsorship disclosure, ease of use, privacy, contents, authorship, references, editorial policies and health information.
The ratings do not test the scientific accuracy and validity of the health information. However, a number of the ratings attributes are intended to evaluate information quality. Sites that scored well in contents, authorship, references and transparency of editorial policies scored the highest overall.
See how each site rated at http://www.healthratings.org.
The 20 sites, ordered below by popularity measured by traffic (not by ratings score), are:
1. National Institutes of Health
2. WebMD
3. MSN Health & Fitness
4. About Health
5. MedicineNet.com
6. Yahoo! Health
7. MayoClinic.com
8. RealAge
9. AOL Health
10. Drugs.com
11. QualityHealth.com
12. Aetna InteliHealth
13. KidsHealth
14. Healthology
15. RxList
16. Everyday Health
17. MedHelp.org
18. Prevention.com
19. eMedicineHealth
20. familydoctor.org
This is the organizations' second rating of the Web's top information sites, published in full at http://www.healthratings.org. Ratings of diet sites were published in 2006. Since the 2005 ratings, at least three sites made improvements:
* About Health: In 2005 and again in 2006, raters penalized About.com and the diets portion of the site for not disclosing a policy and procedure to correct inaccurate information. The site now publishes a corrections policy.
* Drugs.com: When first rated in 2005, the site provided no explanation of mouse-over advertising. It now offers a complete explanation in expanded advertising policy. Raters also penalized the site for not disclosing a corrections policy. It now offers one of the best corrections policies reviewed.
* KidsHealth: Raters penalized the site for lack of a corrections policy during first round of ratings in 2005, and now offers a corrections policy.
Web publishers interested in applying the WebWatch guidelines to their own sites can go to
http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm. The guidelines are also a useful source for consumers as a way to evaluate the quality of Web sites.
In-depth information about methodology and research methods can be found at http://www.healthratings.org. WebWatch and the Institute will publish ratings of the top three online pharmacies in September 2007.
WebWatch invites feedback and commentary on the ratings at its blog, The UnSponsored Link, at http://blog.consumerwebwatch.org/theunsponsoredlink.
About Consumer Reports WebWatch
Consumer Reports WebWatch serves as a daily resource of unbiased and trustworthy information, using the proven methods of Consumer Reports and other independently derived research methods. The WebWatch research agenda includes health, financial services, news and information sites, children's sites and general issues of concern to consumers on the Web, such as privacy, spyware and information security. Consumer Reports WebWatch at Consumers Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine and ConsumerReports.org, acknowledges support of The Pew Charitable Trusts, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Open Society Institute as instrumental to its founding and first five years of success. WebWatch's investigative reports, articles and news are available to the general public at http://www.consumerwebwatch.org. WebWatch accepts no advertising or corporate support whatsoever. WebWatch serves as a special unpaid adviser to the http://www.stopbadware.org project of The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and the Oxford Internet Institute. WebWatch director Beau Brendler is a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee to the Internet Corporation for Assigning Names and Numbers (ICANN). WebWatch is a member of the W3C Consortium and the Internet Society.
About Consumers Union
Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, is an expert, independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves. To achieve this mission, we test, inform, and protect. To maintain our independence and impartiality, CU accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda other than the interests of consumers. CU supports itself through the sale of its information products and services, individual contributions, and a few noncommercial grants. Consumer Reports content can be found online at http://www.consumerreports.org. Consumers Union's public policy work can be found online at http://www.consumersunion.org.
Consumers Union also publishes paid-subscription health information print and online products. These were not rated because they are not among the top 20 most-trafficked sites.
About Health Improvement Institute
Health Improvement Institute is a non-profit, tax exempt, 501(c)3, charitable organization dedicated to improving the quality and productivity of America's health care. The Institute's principal program objective is to provide information to enable people to make informed health care choices. The Institute has established expertise in evaluating the quality of health information on the Internet, conducts forms and workshops, and sponsors national awards programs to recognize excellence, including the Aesculapius Award for excellence in health communication. For more information, visit http://www.hii.org.
SOURCE Consumers Union-NY
CONTACT: Beau Brendler of the Consumers Union, +1-914-378-2600
Nielsen//NetRatings and Mediamark Research Deliver Cross-Media Consumer Data
Nielsen//NetRatings and Mediamark Research Deliver Cross-Media Consumer Data
Market Wire via NewsEdge Corporation :
NEW YORK, NY, July 31 / MARKET WIRE/ --
Nielsen//NetRatings, a service of The Nielsen Company, and Mediamark Research Inc. (MRI) today jointly launched a single-source database of consumers' off-line and online media usage. Print media with complementary Web sites now have a net audience estimate across both platforms as well as detailed demographic, psychographic and product usage information for users of both platforms.
The companies used a state-of-the-art fusion process to link respondent-level information from their two separate, well-respected media tracking services to create a single database, named Net//MRI.
Net//MRI links data from NetView, Nielsen//NetRatings' Internet audience measurement service, with corresponding data points from MRI's Survey of the American Consumer. Using patented metering technology and representative panels of Internet users, Nielsen//NetRatings collects and reports consumer Internet usage, including reach, frequency, and time spent metrics. MRI's survey provides data on magazine and newspaper reading, television viewing, radio listening, product consumption, psychographic characteristics, computer and Internet access configurations, and geodemographic characteristics.
According to the newly released data, an average of 83 percent of the visitors to the Web sites of 23 large-circulation monthly magazines access those magazines' content solely online. Among individual titles, the Web-only percentages range from 65 percent to 96 percent. Male visitors to online magazine sites were more likely than female visitors to read only the online version. However, there was little difference between older and younger visitors to these sites in their propensity to read the printed magazines affiliated with those sites.
Average Percentage
Magazine Web site Visitors who Access Magazine Content Online Only
Total Adults 83%
Men 90%
Women 83%
Ages 18-44 82%
Ages 45+ 85%
Base: Visitors to 23 Web sites affiliated with 23 large-circulation
monthly magazines
Source: Net//MRI May 2007
"Technology and innovation continue to change the media landscape and today's publishers and advertisers require a holistic view of their consumers," said Manish Bhatia, executive vice president, NetRatings. "We are delighted to be partnering with MRI to deliver this innovative dataset that reports online and off-line media usage and will help clients execute data-driven cross media plans."
"This new venture provides the advertising and media marketplace with unduplicated audience numbers for print media and their Web sites," said Kathi Love, president and chief executive officer of MRI. "It brings the research industry one step closer to measuring the reach of cross-platform advertising, which has increased dramatically with the rise of the Internet as a publishing venue."
The companies plan to publish Net//MRI data monthly, shortly after the release of Nielsen//NetRatings' monthly NetView data.
About Nielsen//NetRatings
Nielsen//NetRatings, a service of The Nielsen Company, delivers leading Internet media and market research solutions. With high quality, technology-driven products and services, Nielsen//NetRatings is the global standard for Internet audience measurement and premier source for online advertising intelligence, enabling clients to make informed business decisions regarding their Internet and digital strategies. The Nielsen//NetRatings portfolio includes panel-based and site-centric Internet audience measurement services, online advertising intelligence, user lifestyle and demographic data, e-commerce and transaction metrics, and custom data, research and analysis. For more information, please visit www.nielsen-netratings.com.
About MRI
Founded in 1979, MRI interviews 26,000 U.S. adults in their homes each year, asking about their use of media, their consumption of products and their lifestyles and attitudes.
MRI is the country's leading provider of magazine audience and multimedia research data. The company releases data from Survey of the American Consumer (adults 18+) twice yearly, in the spring and fall. MRI data have become the basic media-planning currency for the majority of the media plans that are created each year by national advertisers and their agencies. The company's 26,000 in-home interviews each year represent the biggest survey of its kind.
MRI is part of GfK Group AG, Nuremberg, Germany. For more information, please visit www.mediamark.com.
Harris Poll Shows Number of "Cyberchondriacs" - Adults Who Have Ever Gone Online for Health Information- Increases to an Estimated 160 Million Nationwide
Harris Poll Shows Number of "Cyberchondriacs" – Adults Who Have Ever Gone Online for Health Information– Increases to an Estimated 160 Million Nationwide
Searching the Internet for health care information has become more widespread in the past year. Over the last two years, the number of people who have used the Internet to search for health-related information has also increased markedly, (from 53% in 2005 to 71% currently). This brings the number of all U.S. adults who have ever searched for health information online (Harris Interactive® refers to them as "cyberchondriacs") to 160 million, from 136 million in 2006 and 117 million in 2005 — a 37 percent increase over two years.
The proportion of these "cyberchondriacs" who search online either often or sometimes has also risen. Most adults who have ever looked for health information online claim that they have been at least somewhat successful in finding what they were looking for. In addition, the great majority believes the information to be at least somewhat reliable, and most of them have talked to their physicians about the information they found on the Internet.
These are some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,010 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive between July 10 and 16, 2007.
Specifically, the survey found:
- The number of U.S. adults who have ever gone online to look for health or medical information has increased to approximately 160 million up from about 136 million last year. The reasons for this increase are that the total number of Internet users has increased somewhat and the percent of people online who have looked for information has increased as well. Cyberchondriacs now represent 84 percent of all online adults, up from last year’s 80 percent, and 72 percent in 2005;
- Two thirds (66%) of adults online say that they have looked for information about health topics often (26%) or sometimes (40%), an increase of five percentage points from 2006 (61%);
- The percentage of online adults who say they hardly ever or never search for health information has dropped to 34 percent, down from 39 percent last year and 43 percent in 2005;
- Interestingly, while three-quarters (74%) of those who have ever searched the Internet for health information have done so once or more often in the last month, this is down from 2005 when 85 percent said that they had gone online one or more times in the past month looking for health information;
- On average, a cyberchondriac searches the Internet almost six (5.7) times per month;
- As in the past a large majority of cyberchondriacs (88%) continues to report that they were successful in searching for health information online. However, the percentage of those who say they were "very successful" has declined from 46 percent two years ago and 42 percent last year to only 37 percent now; and
- Fully eighty-six percent of cyberchondriacs say that the health information they found online was reliable (26% "very reliable" and 60% "somewhat reliable"). Interestingly, this has declined slightly from 2005 when 90 percent felt this way. Of special note, the percentage of those who indicate that online medical information was "very reliable" has declined substantially from 37 percent in 2005 to the current 26 percent.
Cyberchondriacs are not only using the Internet to educate themselves, many are also using it to assist in their conversations with their physicians. A 58 percent majority of adults who have gone online to get health information say that they have discussed this information with their doctors at least once in the last year.
Furthermore, more than half (55%) of cyberchondriacs have searched for health information based on discussions with their doctors. This is an increase of ten percentage points from last year’s 45 percent.
So What?
The huge and growing numbers of "cyberchondriacs" who use the internet to look for health information and to help them have better conversations with their doctors has surely had a big impact on the knowledge of patients, the questions they ask their doctors and is therefore changing the doctor-patient relationship and the practice of medicine. There is every reason to believe the impact of the Internet on medical practice will continue to grow.
TABLE 1
CYBERCHONDRIACS: TRENDS 1998-2007
Base: All U.S. adults
| 1998 | 1999 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |
| All adults who are online* | 38 | 46 | 63 | 66 | 67 | 69 | 74 | 77 | 79 |
| All online adults who have ever looked online for health information | 71 | 74 | 75 | 80 | 78 | 74 | 72 | 80 | 84 |
| All adults who have ever looked online for health information | 27 | 34 | 47 | 53 | 52 | 51 | 53 | 61 | 71 |
| All adults who have looked online for health information in last month | NA | NA | 27 | 32 | NA | 31 | 45 | 51 | 53 |
| All adults who have ever looked online for health information + (millions) | 54 | 69 | 97 | 110 | 109 | 111 | 117 | 136 | 160 |
*Includes those online from home, office, school, library or other location
+ Based on July 2006 U.S. Census estimate released January 2007 (225,700,000 total U.S. adults aged 18 or over).
NA = Not Asked
TABLE 2
FREQUENCY OF ACCESSING HEALTH INFORMATION ONLINE: 1998 – 2007
"How often do you look for information online about health topics – often, sometimes, hardly ever or never?"
Base: All U.S. adults who are online*
| 1998 | 1999 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |
| Often | 12 | 13 | 16 | 18 | 17 | 19 | 25 | 21 | 26 |
| Sometimes | 30 | 30 | 30 | 35 | 37 | 31 | 33 | 40 | 40 |
| Hardly ever | 29 | 31 | 30 | 27 | 23 | 24 | 14 | 19 | 18 |
| Never | 29 | 26 | 25 | 20 | 22 | 26 | 29 | 20 | 16 |
| Total who have looked for health or medical information sometimes or often (NET) | 42 | 43 | 46 | 53 | 54 | 50 | 58 | 61 | 66 |
| Total who have ever looked for health or medical information (NET) | 71 | 74 | 75 | 80 | 78 | 74 | 72 | 80 | 84 |
Note: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding
*Includes those online from home, office, school, library or other location
TABLE 3
FREQUENCY OF LOOKING FOR HEALTH INFORMATION IN LAST MONTH: 2001-2007
"About how many times have you looked for information online about health topics in the last month?"
Base: Have ever looked for health information online
| 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |
| Not once | 40 | 39 | NA | 21 | 14 | 23 | 26 |
| 1 or more (NET) | 58 | 60 | NA | 60 | 85 | 76 | 74 |
| 1 or 2 times | 29 | 34 | NA | 26 | 31 | 35 | 30 |
| 3 – 5 times | 17 | 16 | NA | 14 | 29 | 23 | 21 |
| 6 – 9 times | 3 | 2 | NA | 5 | 6 | 5 | 8 |
| 10 or more times | 9 | 8 | NA | 15 | 19 | 14 | 16 |
| Not sure | 2 | 1 | NA | 19 | 1 | 1 | * |
| | | | | | | | |
| Mean (average) | 3.0 | 4.8 | NA | 5.1 | 6.8 | 5.2 | 5.7 |
| Median | 1.1 | 2.0 | NA | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2 | 2 |
Note: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding.
NA = Not asked in 2003
TABLE 4
Success in Searching for Information Online about Health Topics
"How successful were you in your search for information online about health topics? Were you…?"
Base: Have ever looked for health information online
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| % | % | % | |
| SUCCESSFUL (NET) | 89 | 88 | 88 |
| Very successful | 46 | 42 | 37 |
| Somewhat successful | 43 | 46 | 50 |
| Neither successful nor unsuccessful | 2 | 4 | 5 |
| UNSUCCESSFUL (NET) | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Somewhat unsuccessful | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Very unsuccessful | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Not sure/Decline to answer | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Note: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding.
TABLE 5
Reliability of Searching for Information Online about Health Topics:
"How reliable do you believe this information is concerning health topics? Is it…?"
Base: Have ever looked for health information online
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| % | % | % | |
| RELIABLE (NET) | 90 | 87 | 86 |
| Very reliable | 37 | 25 | 26 |
| Somewhat reliable | 53 | 61 | 60 |
| Neither reliable nor unreliable | 4 | 7 | 6 |
| UNRELIABLE (NET) | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Somewhat unreliable | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Very unreliable | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Not sure/Decline to answer | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Note: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding.
TABLE 6
Discussion with Doctor About Information Found Online
"In the past year, have you ever discussed with your doctor the information you found online?"
Base: Have ever looked for health information online
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| % | % | % | |
| Yes (NET) | 57 | 52 | 58 |
| Yes, always do | 15 | 13 | 12 |
| Yes, sometimes do | 25 | 21 | 22 |
| Yes, have done once or twice | 18 | 19 | 24 |
| No, never do | 43 | 48 | 42 |
| Not sure/Decline to answer | * | * | * |
Note: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding
* Less than 0.5 percent.
TABLE 7
Frequency of Searching Medical Information Online Based on
Discussion with Doctor
"Have you ever searched for medical information on the Internet based on a discussion with your doctor?"
Base: Have ever looked for health information online
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | |
| % | % | % | |
| Yes (NET) | 52 | 45 | 55 |
| Yes, often | 17 | 14 | 17 |
| Yes, sometimes | 36 | 31 | 38 |
| No, never | 48 | 55 | 45 |
| Not sure/Decline to answer | * | * | * |
Note: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding
* Less than 0.5 percent.
Methodology
This Harris Poll® was conducted by telephone within the United States between July 10 and 16, 2007 among 1,010 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, number of adults in the household, number of phone lines in the household were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population.
All surveys are subject to several sources of error. These include: sampling error (because only a sample of a population is interviewed); measurement error due to question wording and/or question order, deliberately or unintentionally inaccurate responses, nonresponse (including refusals), interviewer effects (when live interviewers are used) and weighting.
With one exception (sampling error) the magnitude of the errors that result cannot be estimated. There is, therefore, no way to calculate a finite "margin of error" for any survey and the use of these words should be avoided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
