MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979764658 · doi:10.2196/jmir.2934

Use of the Internet as a Health Information Resource Among French Young Adults: Results From a Nationally Representative Survey

2014· article· en· W1979764658 on OpenAlexaff
François Beck, Jean‐Baptiste Richard, Viêt Nguyen‐Thanh, Ilaria Montagni, Isabelle Parizot, Émilie Renahy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetHealth Information National Trends SurveyResource (disambiguation)Environmental healthInternet privacyPsychologyHealth informationMedicineComputer scienceDemographyGerontologyWorld Wide WebHealth careSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Internet is one of the main resources of health information especially for young adults, but website content is not always trustworthy or validated. Little is known about this specific population and the importance of online health searches for use and impact. It is fundamental to assess behaviors and attitudes of young people looking for online health-related information and their level of trust in such information. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to describe the characteristics of Internet users aged 15-30 years who use the Web as a health information resource and their trust in it, and to define the context and the effect of such use on French young adults' behavior in relation to their medical consultations. METHODS: We used the French Health Barometer 2010, a nationally representative survey of 27,653 individuals that investigates population health behaviors and concerns. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed using a subsample of 1052 young adults aged 15-30 years to estimate associations between demographics, socioeconomic, and health status and (1) the use of the Internet to search for health information, and (2) its impact on health behaviors and the physician-patient relationship. RESULTS: In 2010, 48.5% (474/977) of Web users aged 15-30 years used the Internet for health purposes. Those who did not use the Internet for health purposes reported being informed enough by other sources (75.0%, 377/503), stated they preferred seeing a doctor (74.1%, 373/503) or did not trust the information on the Internet (67.2%, 338/503). However, approximately 80% (371/474) of young online health seekers considered the information found online reliable. Women (P<.001) and people with higher sociocultural positions (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9 and OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7 for employees and manual workers, respectively, vs individuals with executive or manager positions) were more likely to use the Internet for health purposes. For a subsample of women only, online health seeking was more likely among those having a child (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.7) and experiencing psychological distress (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-4.0). Finally, for online health seekers aged 15-30 years, one-third (33.3%, 157/474) reported they changed their health behaviors (eg, frequency of medical consultations, way of taking care of one's own health) because of their online searches. Different factors were associated with different outcomes of change, but psychological distress, poor quality of life, and low income were the most common. CONCLUSIONS: The Internet is a useful tool to spread health information and prevention campaigns, especially to target young adults. Young adults trust online information and consider the Internet as a valid source of health advice. Health agencies should ensure the improvement of online health information quality and the creation of health-related websites and programs dedicated to young adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations379
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207