Establishing Patient Perceptions and Preferences for a Journal Authenticator Tool To Support Health Literacy: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study

Abstract

Abstract Background Predatory journals are illegitimate journals that do not meet expected publication best practices. Many of these journals can be found using Google, making them readily available to patients searching online for health information. The goal of this study was to obtain information about how patients use the internet to get health information and to determine patient preferences and needs for a journal authenticator tool which would highlight journal transparency practices. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian-based adult patients and caregivers and then a series of online focus groups to further explore the survey responses. Descriptive statistics (counts and percentages) were reported for all quantitative survey items. For text-based responses, we used thematic content analysis. Online focus groups asked patients about the content they would like to see in a journal authenticator tool, how they would like the content visually displayed, how to best share the tool with patients, and how to determine whether the tool was successful over time. Thematic content analysis was conducted to identify core themes discussed. Focus group participants completed a follow-up survey in which they rank ordered the themes identified by perceived importance. Results 183 participants completed our online survey. A total of 146 (82%) participants indicated they use the internet most often when looking for health information. Sixty-six (37%) indicated they sometimes read original research articles when searching for health information and 92 (52%) participants indicated they sometimes have difficulty knowing if the information they read online is reliable. Eighty-six (49%) participants had never heard of predatory journals. Thirty-nine survey participants indicated their willingness to contribute to subsequent focus groups and a total of 29 participated. Four key topic areas were discussed and 32 themes were identified. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients have expressed a need for a journal authenticator tool and that this tool may provide value to them. The results from this study will help inform the tool’s development to help ensure that it meets the needs of patients. Trial registration: This mixed-methods study has been registered on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/56ead/