How Internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: A cross-cultural review
How Internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: A cross-cultural review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1089/1094931042403082
复制
发表时间：
2004-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Morahan-Martin, JM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Morahan-Martin, JM
互联网已成为查找健康信息的首选来源。在全球范围内，大约4.5%的互联网搜索是与健康相关的信息。然而，研究发现，在线健康信息的质量参差不齐，这引起了人们对这些信息影响的严重担忧。本文回顾了相关研究，以了解互联网上的健康信息是如何被检索、评估和使用的。大多数在线健康信息的用户都在寻找有关特定健康状况的信息，因为他们或他们认识的人被诊断出患有某种疾病。他们通常使用通用搜索引擎查找在线健康信息，并输入经常拼写错误的短语。他们很少超过搜索的第一页。他们的搜索和评估技能都是有限的，尽管他们关心在线健康信息的质量。他们避开带有明显商业主义色彩的网站，但往往不关注可信度指标。在线健康信息用于填补信息空白，从而增强应对能力和自我效能，影响用户及其朋友和家人的健康相关决策和行为，并经常与卫生保健提供者进行讨论。在使用的网站类型以及如何使用在线信息方面存在跨文化差异。基于本文的研究综述，本文提出了三点主要建议。专业人士应该推荐网站。专业人员应该促进更有效的搜索和评估技术。专业人员应参与制定和促进卫生和精神卫生场所的统一标准。
The Internet has become a favored source to find health information. Worldwide, about 4.5% of all Internet searches are for health-related information. However, research has found that the quality of online health information is mixed, which raises serious concerns about the impact of this information. This paper reviews relevant research to understand how health information on the Internet is retrieved, evaluated, and used. Most users of online health information are looking for information about specific health conditions because they or someone they know was diagnosed with a medical condition. They typically use general search engines to find online health information and enter short phrases, often misspelled. They seldom go beyond the first page of a search. Both their search and evaluation skills are limited although they are concerned about the quality of online health information. They avoid sites with overt commercialism, but often do not pay attention to indicators of credibility. Online health information is used to fill an information void which can enhance coping and self efficacy, affects health-related decisions and behavior of users and their friends and family, and is often discussed with health care providers. There are cross-cultural differences in the types of sites used as well as how online information is used. Based on the research reviewed in this paper, three major recommendations are suggested. Professionals should recommend sites. Professionals should promote more effective search and evaluation techniques. Professionals should be involved in developing and promoting uniform standards for health and mental health sites.