OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Journal of medical Internet research
07 03, 2019;21 (7): e14105.

Differences in Perceptions of Health Information Between the Public and Health Care Professionals: Nonprobability Sampling Questionnaire Survey.

Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Nour Abed Elhadi Shahbari, Ricky Cohen, Adva Mir Halavi, Rana Hijazi, Galit Paz-Yaakobovitch, Yael Birman
Author Information
  1. Anat Gesser-Edelsburg: Health and Risk Communication Research Center and School of Public Health, Haifa, Israel. ORCID
  2. Nour Abed Elhadi Shahbari: Health and Risk Communication Research Center and School of Public Health, Haifa, Israel. ORCID
  3. Ricky Cohen: Health and Risk Communication Research Center and School of Public Health, Haifa, Israel. ORCID
  4. Adva Mir Halavi: Health and Risk Communication Research Center and School of Public Health, Haifa, Israel. ORCID
  5. Rana Hijazi: Health and Risk Communication Research Center and School of Public Health, Haifa, Israel. ORCID
  6. Galit Paz-Yaakobovitch: Health and Risk Communication Research Center and School of Public Health, Haifa, Israel. ORCID
  7. Yael Birman: Health and Risk Communication Research Center and School of Public Health, Haifa, Israel. ORCID
PMID: 31271145 DOI: 10.2196/14105

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the new media age, the public searches for information both online and offline. Many studies have examined how the public reads and understands this information but very few investigate how people assess the quality of journalistic articles as opposed to information generated by health professionals.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine how public health care workers (HCWs) and the general public seek, read, and understand health information and to investigate the criteria by which they assess the quality of journalistic articles.
METHODS: A Web-based nonprobability sampling questionnaire survey was distributed to Israeli HCWs and members of the public via 3 social media outlets: Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. A total of 979 respondents participated in the online survey via the Qualtrics XM platform.
RESULTS: The findings indicate that HCWs find academic articles more reliable than do members of the general public (44.4% and 28.4%, respectively, P<.001). Within each group, we found disparities between the places where people search for information and the sources they consider reliable. HCWs consider academic articles to be the most reliable, yet these are not their main information sources. In addition, HCWs often use social networks to search for information (18.2%, P<.001), despite considering them very unreliable (only 2.2% found them reliable, P<.001). The same paradoxes were found among the general public, where 37.5% (P<.001) seek information via social networks yet only 8.4% (P<.001) find them reliable. Out of 6 quality criteria, 4 were important both to HCWs and to the general public.
CONCLUSIONS: In the new media age where information is accessible to all, the quality of articles about health is of critical importance. It is important that the criteria examined in this research become the norm in health writing for all stakeholders who write about health, whether they are professional journalists or citizen journalists writing in the new media.

Keywords

Web-based and newspaper health information sources health information-seeking journalistic articles public healthcare workers and the general public quality criteria for health journalists reading and understanding

References

  1. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Aug 09;16:107 [PMID: 27506607]
  2. Track Rep. 2011 Nov;(26):1-6 [PMID: 22121566]
  3. Scand J Caring Sci. 2012 Mar;26(1):151-60 [PMID: 21627673]
  4. J Health Commun. 2016;21(sup2):109-120 [PMID: 27668318]
  5. J Med Internet Res. 2009 Mar 27;11(1):e11 [PMID: 19329408]
  6. Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Aug;87(8):566 [PMID: 19704998]
  7. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 2):1017-21 [PMID: 17911869]
  8. J Health Commun. 2010;15 Suppl 3:186-99 [PMID: 21154093]
  9. CMAJ. 2004 Apr 27;170(9):1399-407 [PMID: 15111473]
  10. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Dec 29;17(12):e288 [PMID: 26715363]
  11. Eff Clin Pract. 2001 Jul-Aug;4(4):185-8 [PMID: 11525108]
  12. J Biomed Inform. 2010 Dec;43(6):962-71 [PMID: 20670693]
  13. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jan 13;17(1):e19 [PMID: 25586865]
  14. J Rural Health. 2019 Jun;35(3):405-417 [PMID: 30444935]
  15. Qual Health Res. 2010 Aug;20(8):1050-61 [PMID: 20442347]
  16. Cancer Invest. 2008 Mar;26(2):202-7 [PMID: 18259953]
  17. Health Commun. 2004;16(3):273-88 [PMID: 15265751]
  18. N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 1;342(22):1645-50 [PMID: 10833211]
  19. Health Commun. 2016;31(5):575-82 [PMID: 26452300]
  20. J Neurooncol. 2012 Sep;109(3):573-80 [PMID: 22810759]
  21. J Med Internet Res. 2015 May 07;17(5):e112 [PMID: 25953147]
  22. Med J Aust. 2000 Dec 4-18;173(11-12):631-4 [PMID: 11379512]
  23. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015 Feb 21;17(2):e25156 [PMID: 25834743]
  24. Qual Health Res. 2007 Oct;17(8):1006-19 [PMID: 17928475]
  25. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Nov 11;15(11):e255 [PMID: 24217361]
  26. BMC Public Health. 2012 Mar 26;12:242 [PMID: 22449137]
  27. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012 Dec;36(6):1292-5 [PMID: 23052381]
  28. Public Health Genomics. 2017;20(4):218-228 [PMID: 29050032]
  29. BMC Fam Pract. 2007 Aug 16;8:47 [PMID: 17705836]
  30. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Mar 17;17(3):e70 [PMID: 25783036]
  31. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Nov;26(11):1276-80 [PMID: 25041413]
  32. J Health Commun. 2011;16 Suppl 1:45-58 [PMID: 21843095]
  33. PLoS One. 2010 Nov 29;5(11):e14118 [PMID: 21124761]
  34. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Mar 24;17(3):e79 [PMID: 25831483]
  35. J Health Commun. 2010 Jan;15(1):3-17 [PMID: 20390974]
  36. J Cancer Educ. 2010 Dec;25(4):497-505 [PMID: 20237884]
  37. Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Dec;85(3):432-9 [PMID: 21354761]
  38. J Health Commun. 2011 Jan;16(1):34-49 [PMID: 21086209]
  39. Health Informatics J. 2009 Jun;15(2):75-85 [PMID: 19474221]
  40. Lancet. 2010 Oct 9;376(9748):1261-71 [PMID: 20933263]
  41. J Aging Health. 2012 Apr;24(3):525-41 [PMID: 22187092]
  42. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 27;21(3):e10831 [PMID: 30916666]
  43. Otol Neurotol. 2013 Sep;34(7):1349-54 [PMID: 23921935]
  44. Health Commun. 2017 Feb;32(2):169-179 [PMID: 27191949]
  45. JAMA. 2003 May 14;289(18):2400-6 [PMID: 12746364]
  46. Health Promot Pract. 2013 Mar;14(2):157-62 [PMID: 23271716]
  47. Dermatol Clin. 2009 Apr;27(2):133-6, vi [PMID: 19254656]
  48. Colorectal Dis. 2015 Jun;17(6):511-4 [PMID: 25510335]
  49. World J Urol. 2018 Jun;36(6):985-992 [PMID: 29435639]
  50. Int J Equity Health. 2015 Apr 28;14:40 [PMID: 25927546]
  51. J Adolesc. 2012 Apr;35(2):417-24 [PMID: 21803411]
  52. Health Educ Res. 2013 Apr;28(2):352-9 [PMID: 23193194]
  53. J Health Commun. 2014 Dec;19(12):1359-76 [PMID: 24875456]
  54. Health Commun. 2012;27(2):179-85 [PMID: 21827326]
  55. PLoS One. 2007 Dec 05;2(12):e1266 [PMID: 18060060]
  56. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Feb 16;13(1):e19 [PMID: 21324832]
  57. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2012 Sep;46(3-4):248-51 [PMID: 22909242]
  58. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Jun 15;126(12):976-82 [PMID: 9182476]
  59. Int J Med Inform. 2011 Aug;80(8):586-95 [PMID: 21640643]
  60. J Health Commun. 2011 Jul;16(6):583-94 [PMID: 21391043]
  61. J Clin Nurs. 2010 Oct;19(19-20):2860-8 [PMID: 20598000]
  62. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2014;35(4):337-53 [PMID: 24188253]
  63. J Health Commun. 2012;17(8):960-78 [PMID: 22574697]
  64. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jun 22;17(6):e155 [PMID: 26099267]
  65. Soc Sci Med. 2015 Mar;128:151-8 [PMID: 25618604]
  66. J Med Internet Res. 2003 Oct 10;5(4):e24 [PMID: 14713652]
  67. Health Informatics J. 2016 Dec;22(4):992-1016 [PMID: 26377952]
  68. Int J Med Inform. 2017 Aug;104:38-44 [PMID: 28599815]
  69. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Jan 27;14(1):e19 [PMID: 22357448]
  70. Health Commun. 2017 Sep;32(9):1076-1081 [PMID: 27485762]
  71. PLoS Med. 2008 May 27;5(5):e95 [PMID: 18507496]
  72. Health Commun. 2012;27(1):30-41 [PMID: 21797714]
  73. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 19;19(1):e9 [PMID: 28104579]
  74. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Oct;63(1-2):24-8 [PMID: 16406474]
  75. Health Commun. 2018 Feb;33(2):174-187 [PMID: 27983868]
  76. PLoS Med. 2004 Dec;1(3):e38 [PMID: 15630461]
  77. J Health Commun. 2013;18(9):1039-69 [PMID: 23750972]
  78. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):577-81 [PMID: 11884322]
  79. Am J Infect Control. 2014 Aug;42(8):829-33 [PMID: 24939516]
  80. Health Inf Manag. 2016 Aug;45(2):80-9 [PMID: 27105476]
  81. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995 Jul;16(7):412-5 [PMID: 7673647]
  82. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2002 Jun 30;122(17):1671-6 [PMID: 12555610]
  83. Health Commun. 2012;27(8):806-17 [PMID: 22356137]
  84. BMJ. 1997 Jun 28;314(7098):1875-9 [PMID: 9224132]
  85. J Health Commun. 2018;23(8):724-734 [PMID: 30160641]
  86. Int J Med Inform. 2006 Jan;75(1):42-57 [PMID: 16169770]
  87. J Health Commun. 2010 Oct;15(7):734-53 [PMID: 21104503]
  88. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Apr;60(7):1467-78 [PMID: 15652680]
  89. JAMA. 2002 May 22-29;287(20):2691-700 [PMID: 12020305]
  90. J Laryngol Otol. 2016 Feb;130(2):157-61 [PMID: 26805389]
  91. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Aug;100(8):1519-1526 [PMID: 28320559]
  92. Health Info Libr J. 2013 Sep;30(3):178-90 [PMID: 23981019]
  93. Health Commun. 2009 Jun;24(4):327-36 [PMID: 19499426]
  94. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 May;24(5):e135-40 [PMID: 25457189]
  95. Soc Work Public Health. 2018;33(1):43-54 [PMID: 29257932]
  96. Soc Sci Med. 2004 Nov;59(9):1795-806 [PMID: 15312915]
  97. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Sep 24;14(5):e117 [PMID: 23006336]
  98. Health Aff (Millwood). 1985 Spring;4(1):5-23 [PMID: 3997047]
  99. J Health Commun. 2012;17 Suppl 3:109-21 [PMID: 23030565]
  100. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jan 14;16(1):e10 [PMID: 24425598]
  101. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 13;14(6):e153 [PMID: 23149453]
  102. Occup Environ Med. 2007 Apr;64(4):223-7 [PMID: 17182640]
  103. Health Commun. 2016;31(1):117-28 [PMID: 26086195]
  104. Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8 [PMID: 7455683]

MeSH Term

Adult
Female
Health Personnel
Humans
Male
Medical Informatics
Perception
Public Health
Surveys and Questionnaires
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 70

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0publicinformationhealtharticlesHCWsqualitygeneralreliableP<001mediacriterianewjournalisticviasocial4%foundsourcesjournalistsageonlineexaminedinvestigatepeopleassessworkersseekWeb-basedsurveymembersfindacademicsearchconsideryetnetworks2%importantwritingHealthBACKGROUND:searchesofflineManystudiesreadsunderstandsopposedgeneratedprofessionalsOBJECTIVE:aimstudyexaminecarereadunderstandMETHODS:nonprobabilitysamplingquestionnairedistributedIsraeli3outlets:FacebookWhatsAppInstagramtotal979respondentsparticipatedQualtricsXMplatformRESULTS:findingsindicate4428respectivelyWithingroupdisparitiesplacesmainadditionoftenuse18despiteconsideringunreliable2paradoxesamong375%864CONCLUSIONS:accessiblecriticalimportanceresearchbecomenormstakeholderswritewhetherprofessionalcitizenDifferencesPerceptionsInformationPublicCareProfessionals:NonprobabilitySamplingQuestionnaireSurveynewspaperinformation-seekinghealthcarereadingunderstanding

Similar Articles

Cited By (9)