MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401593365 · doi:10.2196/54827

The Online Health Information–Seeking Behaviors of People Who Have Experienced Stroke: Qualitative Interview Study

2024· article· en· W4401593365 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brigid Clancy, Billie Bonevski, Coralie English, Ashleigh Guillaumier

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisStroke (engine)CohortPsychologyPhoneInformation seeking behaviorRandomized controlled trialQualitative researchMedicineInformation seekingFamily medicineGerontologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. As health resources become digitized, it is important to understand how people who have experienced stroke engage with online health information. This understanding will aid in guiding the development and dissemination of online resources to support people after stroke. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the online health information-seeking behaviors of people who have experienced stroke and any related barriers or navigational needs. METHODS: Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants via email between March and November 2022. The sampling was done from an existing cohort of Australian stroke survivors who had previously participated in a randomized controlled trial of an online secondary prevention program. The cohort consisted of people with low levels of disability. Semistructured one-on-one interviews were conducted via phone or video calls. These calls were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analyzed by 2 independent coders using a combined inductive-deductive approach. In the deductive analysis, responses were mapped to an online health information-seeking behavior framework. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the remaining raw data that did not fit within the deductive theoretical framework. RESULTS: A sample of 15 relatively independent, high-functioning people who had experienced stroke from 4 Australian states, aged between 29 and 80 years, completed the interview. A broad range of online health information-seeking behaviors were identified, with most relating to participants wanting to be more informed about medical conditions and symptoms of their own or of a family member or a friend. Barriers included limited eHealth literacy and too much generalization of online information. Online resources were described to be more appealing and more accessible if they were high-quality, trustworthy, easy to use, and suggested by health care providers or trusted family members and friends. Across the interviews, there was an underlying theme of disconnection that appeared to impact not only the participants' online health information seeking, but their overall experience after stroke. These responses were grouped into 3 interrelated subthemes: disconnection from conventional stroke narratives and resources, disconnection from the continuing significance of stroke, and disconnection from long-term supports. CONCLUSIONS: People who have experienced stroke actively engage with the internet to search for health information with varying levels of confidence. The underlying theme of disconnection identified in the interviews highlights the need for a more comprehensive and sustained framework for support after stroke beyond the initial recovery phase. Future research should explore the development of tailored and relatable internet-based resources, improved communication and education about the diversity of stroke experiences and ongoing risks, and increased opportunities for long-term support.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207