Difference between revisions of "Journal:What Is health information quality? Ethical dimension and perception by users"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created stub. Saving and adding more.)
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:40, 18 March 2019

Full article title What Is health information quality? Ethical dimension and perception by users
Journal Frontiers in Medicine
Author(s) Al-Jefri, Majed; Evans, Roger; Uchyigit, Gulden; Ghezzi, Pietro
Author affiliation(s) University of Brighton, Brighton and Sussex Medical School
Primary contact Email: pietro dot ghezzi at gmail dot com
Editors Sampaio, Cristina
Year published 2018
Volume and issue 5
Page(s) 260
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00260
ISSN 2296-858X
Distribution license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Website https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2018.00260/full
Download https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2018.00260/pdf (PDF)

Abstract

Introduction: The popularity of seeking health information online makes information quality (IQ) a public health issue. The present study aims at building a theoretical framework of health information quality (HIQ) that can be applied to websites and defines which IQ criteria are important for a website to be trustworthy and meet users' expectations.

Methods: We have identified a list of HIQ criteria from existing tools and assessment criteria and elaborated them into a questionnaire that was promoted via social media and, mainly, the university. Responses (329) were used to rank the different criteria for their importance in trusting a website and to identify patterns of criteria using hierarchical cluster analysis.

Results: HIQ criteria were organized in five dimensions based on previous theoretical frameworks, as well as on how they cluster together in the questionnaire response. We could identify a top-ranking dimension (scientific completeness) that describes what the user is expecting to know from the websites (in particular: description of symptoms, treatments, side effects). Cluster analysis also identified a number of criteria borrowed from existing tools for assessing HIQ that could be subsumed to a broad “ethical” dimension (such as conflict of interests, privacy, advertising policies) that were, in general, ranked of low importance by the participants. Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences in the importance assigned to the various criteria based on gender, language, and whether or not a biomedical educational background was evident.

Conclusions: We identified criteria of HIQ and organized them in dimensions. We observed that ethical criteria, while regarded highly in the academic and medical environment, are not considered highly by the public.

Keywords: internet, information quality, ethics, online information, public health

References

Notes

This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation.