Circulatory Shock, types and stages, compensatory mechanisms
EysenbachKohler
1. THE QUEST TO FIND QUALITY HEALTH
AND MEDICAL INFORMATION ON THE
WEB
2. INTRODUCTION
Prior to this study, the average person’s criteria for assessing
how likely a website would provide them with quality information
was not a topic frequently discussed among human information
behavior specialists.
Average information seekers employ a variety of ways for
researching health and medical information on the Internet.
However, based on the results of this study, their methods for
doing so are less than thorough and somewhat capricious.
In the article, “How do consumers search for and appraise health
information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus
groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews,” Gunther
Eysenbach and Christian Köhler demonstrate that most people
search for and locate information on the internet in a way that is
different from what most researchers have assumed.
3. WHAT THE STUDY DID
The main goal of the observational study was to
establish how ordinary people searched for health and
medical information on the Internet, how successful they
were, and what markers for quality they used
Data was acquired using focus groups, naturalistic
observations of people searching the internet, and post-
search in-depth interviews
8 or 9 health related questions were given to
participants of the study with instructions that they were
to search for the answers on the Internet. Their
methods were studied in a laboratory setting.
5. RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Based on the feedback offered by the participants of the
focus groups, several factors affect consumer criteria for
researching information on the internet:
Authority of source
Layout and appearance
Advertising
Readability
Outbound Links
Picture of the site owner
Email
Credentials and qualifications
Updating of content
Quality seal and third party endorsements
6. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Authority of Source
People want to know where info is coming from and who
is responsible for the content
Information must be considered reliable, or from
respected scientific and public institutions
People trust the websites of an organization or
association more than private websites
It must be made clear whether the information reported
is from a single person or broader source, on scientific
criteria or personal experience
7. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Layout and Design
People consider a professional-looking site presentation to be
important
Website must have elegant overall design
8. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Advertising
Ads on websites must not distract user from site
content
9. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Readability
Content shouldn’t be too complicated or dense,
should be easily understood by ordinary people
Content must not descend into hyperbole, must be
serious and to the point
10. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Outbound Links
If a trusted site provides links to other websites,
people assume they are trustworthy as well
11. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Picture of the Site Owner
People assume a site is trustworthy if a picture of
the site owner is provided and the person in it is
smiling and looks likeable.
12. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Email
People want the ability to contact the provider of the
website and the owner must write back to them
13. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Credentials and Qualifications
Evidence that a site owner is qualified to provide
health and medical information should be given (i.e.
references to his previous work or curriculum vitae)
14. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Updating of Content
Content of website should be recent, and site itself
should indicate that it is updated frequently or at
regular intervals
15. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Quality Seal and Third Party Endorsements
People consider it preferable if seals of approval
from the Federal Department of Health sanctioning
content are provided
16. PEOPLE’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING
INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Overall, people consider the internet a useful and convenient
tool for retrieving very general health and medical information
“Websites from official authorities, a professional layout,
understandable and professional writing, and citation of
scientific references were the most often mentioned criteria for
trustworthiness” (Eysenbach 7)
Users stated that they were pleased about the newfound
opportunities the Internet provided to verify information given
to them by their physicians, but made it clear that, vice versa,
they would always verify with their physicians the information
they found on the internet
18. OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING THE STUDY
Participants did not make use of medical portals, sites of
medical societies or libraries as a starting point
The search strategies employed by the participants were
predominantly vague and ineffective means of looking up
information (i.e. did not make frequent use of multiple term
combinations, picked only the first result on the list before
rephrasing search)
In spite of their strategies, participants were “very successful”
in finding the information that allowed them to answer the
questions
In spite of the statements made during the focus groups, none
of the participants researched the owners of the websites or
how the information had been compiled
19. SOME GENERAL THOUGHTS TO
CONSIDER
What does this study teach us about the ways in
which people search for medical information on the
internet?
In what ways do the participants’ criteria for
assessing medical information on the internet cross
over into the concept of cognitive authority?
Think back to our discussions about Bates’
Berrypicking model. Do the strategies employed by
the participants of the study bear any similarities to
this? If yes, how?
