WEBSITES IN VASCULAR HEALTH: A TOOL FOR WHOM? USER CHARACTERISTICS AND MOTIVATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Limited data is available to describe the characteristics and motivations of users of health websites. Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) proposed three categories of motivation: 1) autonomous motivation: engaging in a behavior because it is perceived to be consistent with intrinsic and meaningful goals, 2) controlled motivation: engaging in a behavior for reward, or trying to avoid feelings of guilt, and 3) amotivation: lack of autonomous and controlled motivation. The aim of this study is to profile users and described the motivations behind using a health website. Design and method: In this multicenter study, participants had to be 18 years and older, concerned by a vascular health condition, and skilled to use digital tools. They were approached by collaborating physicians (n=30) during routine consultations or through social networks. An anonymous, validated electronic questionnaire assessed socio-demographic variables, digital competence, and motivations for using a health website. Results: 137 participants, mean age of 65.25 (± 11.78 years, 52.5% female) were recruited. The most prevalent diagnoses among participants were hypertension (48.70%) and diabetes (31.40%). The group aged 64 and below self-evaluated with better digital competence (8.97 ± 2.76) compared to the 65-74 age group (7.5 ± 2.70) and the 75 years and older group (6.41 ± 3.25) (p < 0.01). The difference between the women's and men's group did not reach statistical significance. Regarding motivation to consult a health website, the group aged 64 and below shows higher autonomous motivation (5.53± 0.16) than the 65-74 age group (5.33 ± 0.11) and the 75 years and older group (5.40 ± 0.38) (p < 0.01). Autonomous motivation was higher in the women's group (5.48 ± 0.13) than in the men's group (5.39 ± 0.32) (p < 0.05). Inversely, controlled motivation (2.94 ± 0.58) and amotivation (3.61 ± 0.33), was higher in men's group than in women's group (2.54 ± 0.55 and 3.30 ± 0.40) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Motivations to use a health website vary according to gender and age. This study may contribute to a more tailored to users and guide the development and dissemination of health websites.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".