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

• Published in: BMC public health 2022-11, Vol.22 (1), p.1-2001, Article 2001
• Main Authors: Pian, Wenjing, Lin, Laibao, Li, Baiyang, Qin, Chunxiu, Lin, Huizhong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; Age; Beliefs, opinions and attitudes; Consistency; Consumer health information; Credibility; Criteria; Cross-sectional studies; Demographic variables; Demographics; eHealth literacy; Evaluation; Familiarity; Gender; Health education; Health information; Health literacy; Hospitals; Infodemic; Information quality; Information services; Judgement criteria; Online health care information services; Pandemics; Patients; Product quality; Quality management; Quality of service; Social media; Surveys
• ISSN: 1471-2458; 1471-2458
• DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14418-9

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. Keywords: Health information, Information quality, Judgement criteria, Social media, eHea