MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382931578 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000002038

Trust and Access: Eye Information‐seeking Practices and Preferences among Canadians

2023· article· en· W4382931578 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marlee M. Spafford, Amy Chow, Tammy Labreche, Deborah Jones, Lisa Christian, Nadine Furtado, Sarah MacIver, Elizabeth L. Irving

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Optometric Education Trust Fund
KeywordsRespondentSnowball samplingInformation seekingPsychologyInformation seeking behaviorHealth literacyHealth careHealth Information National Trends SurveyVignetteInternet privacyMedicineSocial psychologyHealth informationComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights the value that the public places on obtaining trusted and accessible health-related information and their preference for obtaining it from their health care practitioners. Previous research has not been specific to Canadians or vision. Findings can be used to increase eye health literacy and eye care utilization. PURPOSE: Canadians underuse eye care and underestimate the occurrence of asymptomatic eye disease. This study explored eye information-seeking practices and preferences among a group of Canadians. METHODS: Using snowball sampling, a 28-item online survey collected respondent perceptions about their eye and health information-seeking practices and preferences. Questions examined electronic device access, information source use, and demographics. Two open-ended questions examined information-seeking practices and preferences. Respondents were at least 18 years old and living in Canada. Individuals working in eye care were excluded. Response frequencies and z scores were computed. Written comments were assessed using content analysis. RESULTS: Respondents searched for less eye than health information ( z scores ≥ 2.25, P < .05). For eye and health information, primary care providers were the used and preferred source, and reliance on Internet searches was greater than desired. Trust and access drove information-seeking practices. Respondent comments suggested that a hierarchy of trust operates across My Health Team, My Network, and My External Sources, with a persistent threat posed by Discredited Sources. Access to information sources seemed mediated by enablers (Convenience and Accessible Features) and barriers (Unreachable Health Team and Absent Systems). Eye information was seen as more specialized and harder to find. There was a high regard for health care practitioners who provide their patients with curated trusted information. CONCLUSIONS: These Canadians value trusted and accessible health-related information. They prefer eye and health information from their health care practitioners and value when their health team provides online curated information, particularly regarding eyes.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.017
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.496 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207