首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >Low-Level Evidence Suggests that Perceived Ability to Evaluate and Trust Online Health Information is Associated with Low Health Literacy
【24h】

Low-Level Evidence Suggests that Perceived Ability to Evaluate and Trust Online Health Information is Associated with Low Health Literacy

机译:低级证据表明,评估和信任在线健康信息的感知能力与低健康素养相关

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective – To review, based on research evidence, the correlation between low health literacy and four outcomes of interest: (1) the ability to evaluate online health information based on (2) perceived reliability and accuracy, (3) trust in the Internet as an information source, and (4) the application of established evaluation criteria. Design – Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Setting –MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Communication and Mass-media Complete as well as articles discovered through the snowball method. Subjects – 38 studies identified through a systematic literature search. Methods – An exhaustive list of potential articles was gathered through searching five online databases and Google Scholar, and hand searching of references. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied in a two-phase screening process in which two researchers participated to address reliability. Data, including study characteristics and metadata, predictors, assessment methods, and outcomes, were extracted from relevant studies, and then synthesized narratively. Main Results – Following duplication removal 13,632 records were retrieved, 254 of which were identified for full-text assessment. Thirty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria. All studies were non-experimental and therefore graded as a low level of evidence; 35 were cross-sectional designs, 1 a focus group, and 2 were observational studies. Studies varied widely in population definition and sample size and were published between 2001 and 2013, primarily in North America. Overall, a positive association was identified between health literacy and outcomes related to the ability to evaluate or trust Internet health information, while findings were inconsistent related to perceived quality of information and the application of evaluative criteria. Four studies examined the impact of health literacy levels on one or more of the outcomes of interest. The most prevalent outcome measure studied was trust in online health information, and the least prevalent was the use of evaluative criteria. The ability to trust online health information was assessed primarily through self-reporting, half of which utilized the eHealth Literacy scale, the majority of which indicated a positive correlation between education level or low health literacy and the perceived or actual ability to evaluate online health information. No studies on perceived information quality were found to utilize health literacy as an indicator. A positive association between educational level and trust in health information on the Internet was reported in ten studies, while two articles noted a similar correlation based on proxies for health literacy, including English language proficiency and comprehension comfort. In terms of the use of evaluation criteria, only one study focused on health literacy, indicating that those with low health literacy evaluate online health information based on search result placement, celebrity endorsement, image quality, and site authorship, and that they trust university researchers more than government or religious authorities to provide health information. No association was shown between readability or physician-provided online information and evaluation criteria while one study demonstrated that study participants with higher education tended to check author credentials more often when evaluating a website. Conclusion – Effective and informed evaluation of online health information is impacted by low health literacy.
机译:目的–基于研究证据,审查低健康素养与四个关注结果之间的相关性:(1)基于(2)感知的可靠性和准确性评估在线健康信息的能力,(3)对互联网的信任度为信息来源,以及(4)应用已建立的评估标准。设计–系统评价和叙述性综合。设置–MEDLINE,PsycInfo,Web of Science,CINAHL和Communication and Mass-media Complete,以及通过雪球方法发现的文章。主题–通过系统的文献检索确定了38项研究。方法–通过搜索五个在线数据库和Google Scholar,并手工搜索参考文献,收集了潜在文章的详尽列表。在两个阶段的筛选过程中应用了包含和排除标准,两名研究人员参与其中以解决可靠性问题。从相关研究中提取包括研究特征和元数据,预测因素,评估方法和结果在内的数据,然后进行叙述性合成。主要结果–删除重复项后,检索到13,632条记录,其中254条记录被鉴定用于全文评估。 38项研究符合资格标准。所有的研究都是非实验性的,因此被归为低水平的证据。横断面设计35个,焦点小组1个,观察研究2个。有关人群定义和样本量的研究差异很大,并于2001年至2013年间发表,主要是在北美。总体而言,在健康素养和与评估或信任互联网健康信息的能力有关的结果之间发现存在正相关关系,而调查结果与感知的信息质量和评估标准的应用并不一致。四项研究检查了健康素养水平对一个或多个相关结果的影响。研究的最普遍的结局指标是对在线健康信息的信任,而最不普遍的是评价标准的使用。信任在线健康信息的能力主要通过自我报告来评估,其中一半使用了eHealth扫盲量表,其中大部分表明教育水平或低健康素养与评估在线健康信息的感知或实际能力之间存在正相关关系。 。没有发现关于感知信息质量的研究可以利用健康素养作为指标。十项研究报告说,教育水平与互联网上对健康信息的信任之间存在正相关关系,而两篇文章指出,基于健康素养的代表(包括英语水平和理解舒适度)存在相似的相关性。就评估标准的使用而言,只有一项研究侧重于健康素养,这表明健康素养低的人们基于搜索结果的位置,名人的认可,图像质量和网站作者身份来评估在线健康信息,并且他们信任大学研究人员不只是政府或宗教当局提供健康信息。可读性或医生提供的在线信息与评估标准之间没有关联,而一项研究表明,接受高等教育的研究参与者在评估网站时倾向于更频繁地检查作者的证书。结论–在线健康信息的有效和知情评估受到较低的健康素养的影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号