MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2070354507 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.768325

Seeing Is Believing? A Mixed-Methods Study Exploring the Quality and Perceived Trustworthiness of Online Information About Chronic Conditions Aimed at Children and Young People

2013· article· en· W2070354507 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth Communication · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesBloorview Research InstituteHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation
Mots-clésInter-rater reliabilityReliability (semiconductor)MedicineChronic conditionPsychologyQuality (philosophy)Health careFocus groupPerceptionThe InternetInformation qualityApplied psychologyInformation systemDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The numbers of children and young people with chronic conditions are increasing. While their information needs may vary, providing health care information can have considerable benefits, including better emotional health, less distress during treatments, and greater satisfaction with medical care. The Internet is increasingly being used to communicate health-related information to children about a range of chronic conditions. However, the quality of such websites is underexplored. Thus, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the reliability and quality of online information for children about chronic conditions using a standardized evaluation tool, and to explore children's and young people's perceptions of quality and trustworthiness regarding online health information. The study consisted of two phases. In Phase 1, websites about common pediatric chronic conditions aimed at children and containing treatment or management options were identified and the quality assessment tool DISCERN was completed. Test-retest and interrater reliability were calculated. In Phase 2, two focus groups with laptop computers were conducted with children and young people with a chronic condition to explore their perceptions of trustworthiness of online health information. In Phase 1, 165 websites were identified and 100 met the criteria and were assessed. The mean DISCERN score of all sites was 48.16 out of 75 (SD = 7.97, range 28-71, min 15 to max 75). Quality scores varied widely across the sample. The internal consistency and interrater reliability scores were both lower than previously reported in studies using the DISCERN to assess information for adults. In Phase 2, two focus groups with a total of six participants aged 11-23 years revealed a relative lack of concern about the quality and trustworthiness of online health information. Older participants reported judging the source and authorship of websites, but other participants did not question the source of the information they found online. Although personal websites were perceived to be less reliable than those from well-known medical institutions, they were still valued by many of the participants. Overall, there were relatively few websites about pediatric chronic conditions aimed at children, with variable quality and reliability. However, DISCERN's use with pediatric websites across a broad spectrum of developmental stages is limited. Children and young people demonstrated a need for more guidance around assessing trustworthiness of online information. A more appropriate quality assessment tool is warranted, which could usefully be employed by health care professionals, children, and parents.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,214
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,000
Communication savante0,0000,003
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,073
Tête enseignante GPT0,491
Écart entre enseignants0,418 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle