Baccalaureate Nursing Students' Abilities in Critically Identifying and Evaluating the Quality of Online Health Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the Internet and social media have become important tools that patients and health professionals, including health professional students, use to obtain information and support their decision-making surrounding health care. Students in the health sciences require increased competence to select, appraise, and use online sources to adequately educate and support patients and advocate for patient needs and best practices. The purpose of this study was to ascertain if second year nursing students have the ability to critically identify and evaluate the quality of online health information through comparisons between student and expert assessments of selected online health information postings using an adapted Trust in Online Health Information scale. Interviews with experts provided understanding of how experts applied the selected criteria and what experts recommend for implementing nursing informatics literacy in curriculums. The difference between student and expert assessments of the quality of the online information is on average close to 40%. Themes from the interviews highlighted several possible factors that may influence informatics competency levels in students, specifically regarding the critical appraisal of the quality of online health information.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".