How users make judgements about the quality of online health information: a cross-sectional survey study

Author:

Pian Wenjing,Lin Laibao,Li Baiyang,Qin Chunxiu,Lin Huizhong

Abstract

Abstract Background People increasingly use the Internet to seek health information. However, the overall quality of online health information remains low. This situation is exacerbated by the unprecedented “infodemic”, which has had negative consequences for patients. Therefore, it is important to understand how users make judgements about health information by applying different judgement criteria. Objective The objective of this study is to determine how patients apply different criteria in their judgement of the quality of online health information during the pandemic. In particular, we investigate whether there is consistency between the likelihood of using a particular judgement criterion and its perceived importance among different groups of users. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted in one of the leading hospitals in a coastal province of China with a population of forty million. Combined-strategy sampling was used to balance the randomness and the practicality of the recruiting process. A total of 1063 patients were recruited for this study. Chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis analyses were used to analyse the survey data. Results In general, patients make quality judgement of health information more frequently based on whether it is familiar, aesthetic, and with expertise. In comparison, they put more weights on whether health information is secure, trustworthy, and with expertise when determining its quality. Criteria that were considered more important were not always those with a higher likelihood of being used. Patients may not use particular criteria, such as familiarity, identification, and readability, more frequently than others even if they consider them to be more important than other do and vice versa. Surprisingly, patients with a primary school degree put more weight on whether health information is comprehensive than those with higher degrees do in determining its quality. However, they are less likely to use this guideline in practice. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the consistency between the likelihood of using certain quality judgement criteria and their perceived importance among patients grouped by different demographic variables and eHealth literacy levels. The findings highlight how to improve online health information services and provide fine-grained customization of information for users.

Funder

National Natural Science Foundation of China

Scientific and Technological Innovation 2030-New Generation of Artificial Intelligence Major Project

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Reference53 articles.

1. Kemp S. Digital in 2018: World's internet users pass the 4 billion mark (2018) [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Mar 6]. Available from: https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2018/01/global-digital-report-2018/.

2. Pew Research Center. Health online (2013). 2022 [Cited 2022 Mar 6]. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/ [Accessed 2015–12–27] [WebCite Cache ID 6e5d1gREg].

3. Ratzan SC. Web 2.0 and health communication. J Health Commun. 2011;16(Suppl 1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.601967 ([Medline: 21843091]).

4. Zhang X, Wen D, Liang J, Lei J. How the public uses social media wechat to obtain health information in china: a survey study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(Suppl 2):66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0470-0.PMID:28699549;PMCID:PMC5506568.

5. Sellitto C, Burgess S. Towards a weighted average framework for evaluating the quality of web-located health information. J Inf Sci. 2005;31(4):260–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551505054168.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3