Do quality markers for health websites affect the perception of vaccination webpages?

Allam, Ahmed; Sak, Gabriele; Diviani, Nicola; Schulz, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.003

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some consumers view the fact that a website passes the screening of virus/security software as an indicator of high quality [57]. There are also consumers assuming that third-party accreditations are indicators of information accuracy, when, in fact, the guidelines that these accreditations follow do not really check for information accuracy [74,75]. Consumers need education to use more objective criteria to evaluate online health information and understand the implications of a number of quality indicators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Sun¹,

Zhang²,

Gwizdka³

et al. 2019

J Med Internet Res

244

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Sun¹,

Zhang²,

Gwizdka³

et al. 2019

J Med Internet Res

244

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…paid to show first) or organic result. Other studies have found that individuals used varying indicators to evaluate the quality of online health information including the design appearance of the website, 31,39 medical ownership or accreditation, 40 understandable and professional writing, 31 and use of scientific resources. 31 However, the presence of a quality seal, such as HON code, was only minimally considered by online health consumers when evaluating websites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning to parent from Google? Evaluation of available online health evidence for parents of preterm infants requiring neonatal intensive care

Dol¹,

Richardson

Boates

et al. 2018

Health Informatics J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aim was to identify and evaluate the reliability and quality of online resources for parents of preterm infants seeking health information about their infant using the DISCERN tool and Health on Net code. An Internet search (www.google.com) was used to identify websites for parents of preterm infants on their infants' health and health issues. For each search, the top 100 "hits" were downloaded, yielding 1200 websites. After reviewing websites for exclusion criteria and duplicates, 197 websites remained and were analyzed. According to the DISCERN tool, the websites had a moderate reliability score (mean = 29.88, standard deviation = 4.88, range: 18-40), moderate treatment score (mean = 24.15, standard deviation = 5.79, range: 10-35), and moderate overall quality score (mean = 3.41, standard deviation = 0.89, range: 1-5). Only 24 (12.2%) websites had current Health on Net code approval and no other websites met full eligibility for certification. Overall, the reliability and quality of information available online to parents of preterm infants is lacking.

show abstract

“…Length of posts was calculated as the number of words in a post [25,26,69]. Images in posts was a binary variable that took the value of 1 when the post contained an emoji or an image, and 0 for the rest [35,37,60]. In terms of source credibility, the poster's identity usually comprised their identified role within the community, which was authorized by the community manager [35]; usually, users are experts in the knowledge domain in Q&A communities, while on social media, they can be paid members or opinion leaders with many followers.…”

Section: Data and Variables Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Users of Online Mental Health Communities Get Likes and Reposts: A Combination of Text Mining and Empirical Analysis

Liu

Kong

2021

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An online community is one of the important ways for people with mental disorders to receive assistance and obtain support. This study aims to help users with mental disorders to obtain more support and communication through online communities, and to provide community managers with the possible influence mechanisms based on the information adoption model. We obtained a total of 49,047 posts of an online mental health communities in China, over a 40-day period. Then we used a combination of text mining and empirical analysis. Topic and sentiment analysis were used to derive the key variables—the topic of posts that the users care about most, and the emotion scores contained in posts. We then constructed a theoretical model based on the information adoption model. As core independent variables of information quality, on online mental health communities, the topic of social experience in posts (0.368 ***), the topic of emotional expression (0.353 ***), and the sentiment contained in the text (0.002 *) all had significant positive relationships with the number of likes and reposts. This study found that the users of online mental health communities are more attentive to the topics of social experience and emotional expressions, while they also care about the non-linguistic information. This study highlights the importance of helping community users to post on community-related topics, and gives administrators possible ways to help users gain the communication and support they need.

show abstract

Do quality markers for health websites affect the perception of vaccination webpages?

Cited by 13 publications

References 56 publications

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

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

Learning to parent from Google? Evaluation of available online health evidence for parents of preterm infants requiring neonatal intensive care

Why Do Users of Online Mental Health Communities Get Likes and Reposts: A Combination of Text Mining and Empirical Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About