Characterizing users and intention to use online health information resources: A comprehensive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are a large number of online health information resources (OHIR) and they have the potential to meet a need for health information. However, little is known about users’ characteristics, motivations and intentions to use OHIR, especially among older people. This study, based on the Technology Acceptance Model III (TAM III), aims to address these gaps using an electronic questionnaire and focus groups. 164 participants, 53.7% female, affected by chronic diseases, mean age 64.27 ± 11.68, completed the questionnaire. Results are presented for all participants and by age group, i.e., under 64, 65–74 and 75+. Older participants (75+) reported, performing significantly fewer digital tasks (p < 0.05) and self-assessing, on a scale of 0 to 10, to have lower digital skills, 4.0 ± 2.8, than the 65–74, 5.3 ± 2.7, and the 64 and under group, 7.0 ± 3.0 (p < 0.05). The 75+ group showed higher extrinsic motivation score to use OHIR, 3.10 ± 1.24, than the younger group, 2.38 ± 1.48 (p < 0.05). The intention to use OHIR (scores from 1 to 7) was higher in the 75+ group 6.19 ± 1.15, compared to the 65–74 group (5.38 ± 1.59) and the 64 and under (5.17 ± 1.64) (p < 0.05). Variables, perceived usefulness, OR (95% CI) 6.04 (4.13; 9.09) and perceived ease of use, OR (95% CI) 2.39 (1.77; 3.26), (p < 0.01) showed a significant interaction with intention to use OHIR p < 0.01. In the focus groups (n = 2), participants (n = 5 in each, aged 41 to 76), mentioned that consulting an OHIR is associated with the presence of a specific health condition and emphasized the need for accessible, reliable information that meets their specific needs. While age is associated with differences in digital skills, it does not constitute a barrier to using OHIR. Perceived usefulness in relation to personal health concerns and perceived ease of use—interface simplicity—are determinants of intention to use OHIR. We hypothesize that older individuals with chronic diseases, followed by a care team for a long time, may have additional (extrinsic) motivation to use OHIR. This study highlights the need to characterize the target population and adapt OHIR.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".