Consumer Evaluation of the Quality of Online Health Information: Systematic Literature Review of Relevant Criteria and Indicators

Abstract

Background As the quality of online health information remains questionable, there is a pressing need to understand how consumers evaluate this information. Past reviews identified content-, source-, and individual-related factors that influence consumer judgment in this area. However, systematic knowledge concerning the evaluation process, that is, why and how these factors influence the evaluation behavior, is lacking. Objective This review aims (1) to identify criteria (rules that reflect notions of value and worth) that consumers use to evaluate the quality of online health information and the indicators (properties of information objects to which criteria are applied to form judgments) they use to support the evaluation in order to achieve a better understanding of the process of information quality evaluation and (2) to explicate the relationship between indicators and criteria to provide clear guidelines for designers of consumer health information systems. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in seven digital reference databases including Medicine, Psychology, Communication, and Library and Information Science to identify empirical studies that report how consumers directly and explicitly describe their evaluation of online health information quality. Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. A qualitative content analysis was performed to identify quality evaluation criteria, indicators, and their relationships. Results We identified 25 criteria and 165 indicators. The most widely reported criteria used by consumers were trustworthiness, expertise, and objectivity. The indicators were related to source, content, and design. Among them, 114 were positive indicators (entailing positive quality judgments), 35 were negative indicators (entailing negative judgments), and 16 indicators had both positive and negative quality influence, depending on contextual factors (eg, source and individual differences) and criteria applied. The most widely reported indicators were site owners/sponsors; consensus among multiple sources; characteristics of writing and language; advertisements; content authorship; and interface design. Conclusions Consumer evaluation of online health information is a complex cost-benefit analysis process that involves the use of a wide range of criteria and a much wider range of quality indicators. There are commonalities in the use of criteria across user groups and source types, but the differences are hard to ignore. Evidently, consumers’ health information evaluation can be characterized as highly subjective and contextualized, and sometimes, misinformed. These findings invite more research into how different user groups evaluate different types of online sources and a personalized approach to educate users about evaluating online health information quality.

Factors affecting the quality and reliability of online health information

“…Older adults do not represent common users of the internet for obtaining medical information and they prefer to address medical questions to their physicians. 48 An opportunity living in the digital era, is to use available technology to gather reliable information for old patients taking into account that they are more exposed compared to young people to chronic diseases. 49 An instrument which can serve as a better guideline to improve presentation of health information on the internet was proposed.…”

YouTube as a source of information for do-it-yourself face masks: A content analysis

“…Given the importance of effective communication in educating and encouraging preventive health behaviours in public health emergencies, 24 it is important that updated information is disseminated as widely and as quickly as possible, to provide the public with up-to-date, best practice guidance. Further, as viewers were encouraged to "do their own research", organisations producing this information should seek to include positive indicators of credibility 25 and support ease of access (e.g. promoting readability), in acknowledgement of the variability in individuals' ability to appraise online health information.…”

“…promoting readability), in acknowledgement of the variability in individuals' ability to appraise online health information. 25,26 While there were mixed references to the promotion of 100% cotton or cotton blend fabrics, and use of various materials as lters, the minimal references to ensuring breathability is of concern. Ensuring that face masks are created from optimal materials, is critical to maximising ltration e cacy, 27 whilst maintaining a balance with comfort and breathability.…”

Understanding fake news during the Covid-19 health crisis from the perspective of information behaviour: The case of Spain

“…As mentioned previously, the literature on health-information seeking on the Web points to interactivity as an important element to consider when evaluating information. According to Sun et al (2019), interactivity is all the possibilities within a site to communicate with the system or other users, and to adjust content to consumer needs. This broad definition covers a varied range of features, such as internal search functions, devices for commenting on content and allowing user input and information exchange, multimedia content or personalization tools.…”