MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772082966 · doi:10.2196/ijmr.7000

How, When and Why People Seek Health Information Online: Qualitative Study in Hong Kong

2017· article· en· W2772082966 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetHealth informationCredibilityThematic analysisFocus groupInformation seekingContext (archaeology)Information seeking behaviorPsychologyInternet privacyMedicineHealth careQualitative researchBusinessPolitical scienceGeographyWorld Wide WebSociologyMarketingComputer scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Internet has become an established source for health information. The number of individuals using the Internet to search for health information, ranging from healthy lifestyle advice to treatment and diseases, continues to grow. Scholars have emphasized the need to give greater voice and influence to health consumers. Hong Kong, being one of the most technologically advanced and connected cities in the world, has one of the highest Internet penetration rates in the world. Given the dearth of research in an Asian context, Hong Kong is an excellent platform to study individuals' perceptions (eg, benefits and limitations on seeking health information online and how the information is used) on health information seeking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to study individuals' perceptions on health information seeking and to document their Internet information-seeking behaviors. METHODS: Five focus groups (n=49) were conducted from November 2015 to January 2016 with individuals across different age groups (18 years or above). Focus group contents were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. RESULTS: Older (55+ years) and less educated respondents were less likely to use the Internet to search for health information. Among individuals who obtained health information via the Internet, regardless of the severity of the health issue, the Internet was always the first source for information. Limited doctor consultation time and barriers to accessing professional health services were the main reasons for using the Internet. Convenience and coverage were regarded as the main advantages, whereas credibility and trustworthiness of health information were noted as limitations. The use of Web-based health information varied among individuals; hence, the implications on the doctor-patient relationship were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalent and increasing use of the Internet for health information seeking suggests the need for health care professionals to understand how it can be optimally utilized to improve health outcomes. Strategies for communicating and disseminating credible health information in a form that users can understand and use are essential. Due to the rapid technological and related behavioral changes, online health information seeking and its effects need to be closely monitored.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.008
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.652
Teacher spread0.418 · 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