Are Parents Getting it Right? A Survey of Parents’ Internet Use for Children’s Health Care Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of the Internet to search for medical and health-related information is increasing and associated with concerns around quality and safety. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the current use and perceptions on reliable websites for children's health information by parents. METHODS: Following institutional ethics approval, we conducted a survey of parents/guardians of children presenting for day surgery. A 20-item survey instrument developed and tested by the investigators was administered. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of respondents reported that they used the Internet to search for information about their child's health. Many respondents reported beginning their search at public search engines (80%); less than 20% reported starting their search at university/hospital-based websites. Common conditions such as colds/flu, skin conditions and fever were the most frequently searched, and unique conditions directly affecting the child were second. Despite low usage levels of university/hospital-based websites for health information, the majority of respondents (74%) regarded these as providing safe, accurate, and reliable information. In contrast, only 24% of respondents regarded public search engines as providing safe and reliable information. Fifty percent of respondents reported that they cross-checked information found on the internet with a family physician. CONCLUSIONS: An unprecedented majority of parents and guardians are using the Internet for their child's health information. Of concern is that parents and guardians are currently not using reliable and safe sources of information. Health care providers should begin to focus on improving access to safe, accurate, and reliable information through various modalities including education, designing for multiplatform, and better search engine optimization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".