An examination of factors that affect the credibility of online health information

Technical Communication

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 239-263

  Freeman, Krisandra S ^a   Spyridakis, Jan H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442710430     PISSN: 00493155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (92)

1. American Society of Magazine Editors (ASME). 2002. Guidelines for editors and publishers: Best practices for digital media. 11th ed. New York, NY: American Society of Magazine Editors, http://www.asme.magazine.org/guidelines/ new_media.html
2. Austin, E. W., and Qingwen Dong. 1994. Source v. content effects of judgments of news credibility. Journalism quarterly 71:973-983.
3. Baker, L., T. H. Wagner, S. Singer, and M. K. Bundorf. 2003. Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information. Journal of the American Medical Association 289:2400-2406.
4. Balshem, M. 1991. Cancer, control, and causality: Talking about cancer in a working-class community. American ethnologist 18:152-172.
5. Bard, M. R. 2000. The future of e-health. New York, NY: Cyber Dialogue, Inc. www.cyberdialogue.com
6. Berland, G. K., M. N. Elliott, L. S. Morales, J. I. Algazy, R. L. Kravitz, M. S. Broder, D. E. Kanouse, J. A. Munoz, J. A. Puyol, M. Lara, K. E. Watkins, H. Yang, and E. A. McGlynn. 2001. Health information on the Internet: Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. Journal of the American Medical Association 285:2612-2621.
7. Bernhardt, J. M., R. A. W. Lariscy, R. L. Parrott, K. J. Silk, and E. M. Felter. 2002. Perceived barriers to Internet-based health communication on human genetics. Journal of health communication 7:325-340.
8. BIOME. 2001, How to evaluate an Internet-based information source. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham, http://biome.ac.uk/guidelines/eval/ howto.html
9. Cain, M. M., J. Sarasohn-Kahn, and J. C. Wayne. 2000. Health e-People: The online consumer experience. Menlo Park, CA: Institute for the Future, http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.cfm?itemID=12540
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001, Viral hepatitis A fact sheet. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/a/fact.htm
11. _. 2002. Diabetes: Disabling, deadly, and on the rise, at a glance 2002. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/ diabetes/pubs/glance.htm
12. Cheskin Research. 2000. Trust in the wired Americas. Redwood Shores, CA: Cheskin Research, www.cheskin.com
13. _, and Studio Archetype/Sapient. 1999. eCommerce trust study. Redwood Shores, CA: Cheskin Research. www.cheskin.com
14. Christensen, T. P., F. J. Ascione, and R. P. Bagozzi. 1997. Understanding how elderly patients process drug information: A test of a theory of information processing. Pharmaceutical research 14:1589-1596.
15. Cline, R. J., and J. L. Engel. 1991. College student's perceptions of sources of information about AIDS. Journal of American college health 40 (2): 55-63.
16. Consumer Reports on Health (CROH). 2000. How to research a medical topic. Consumer Reports on health, October, 7-9.
17. Crocco, A. G., M. Villasis-Keever, and A. R. Jadad. 2002. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the Internet. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:2869-2871.
18. Dutta-Bergman, M. 2003. Trusted online sources of health information: Differences in demographics, health beliefs, and health-information orientation. Journal of medical Internet research 5 (3): e21. http://jmir.org/2003/3/e21
19. Eastin, M. S. 2001. Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of computer mediated-communication 6 (4). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue4/eastin.html
20. Eng, T. R., and EvaluMetrix LLC. 2001. The eHealth landscape: A terrain map of emerging information and communication technologies in health and health care. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, http://www.rwjf.org/ publicationsPdfs/eHealth.pdf
21. Eysenbach, G., and C. Köhler. 2002. 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. British medical journal 324:573-577.
22. Fahey, D. K., and J. Weinberg. 2003. LASIK complications and the Internet: Is the public being misled? Journal of medical Internet research 5 (1): e2.
23. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 2001. "Operation Cure.AII" wages new battle in ongoing war against Internet health fraud [press release]. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/06/ cureall.htm
24. Finberg, H. I., M. L. Stone, and D. Lynch. 2002. Digital journalism credibility study: Online News Association. http://www.journalists.org
25. Flanagin, A. J., and M. J. Metzger. 2000. Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and mass communication quarterly 77:515-540.
26. Fogg, B. J., T. Kameda, J. Boyd, J. Marshall, R. Sethi, M. Sockol, and T. Trowbrdige. 2002a. Stanford-Makovsky Web credibility study 2002: Investing what makes Web sites credible today. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Persuasive Technology Laboratory, Stanford University. http://www.webcredibllity.org/
27. _, L. Marable, J. Stanford, and E. R. Tauber. 2002b. How do people evaluate a Web site's credibility? Results from a large study. Yonkers, NY: Consumer WebWatch. http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/ report3_credibilityresearch/stanfordPTL_abstract.htm
28. _, J. Marshall, T. Kameda, J. Solomon, A. Rangnekar, J. Boyd, and B. Brown. 2001 a. What makes Web sites credible? A report on a large qualitative study. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 61-68.
29. _, J. Marshall, L. Othman, Alex Osipovich, C. Varma, N. Fang, J. Paul, A. Rangnekar, J. Shon, P. Swani, and M. Treinen. 2001 b. Web credibility research: A method for online experiments and early study results. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [extended abstracts]. New York, NY: ACM Press, p. 295.
30. Fox, S. L., and D. Fallows. 2003. Internet health resources: Health searches and email have become commonplace, but there is room for Improvement in searches and overall Internet access? Washington, DC: The Pew Internet and American Life Project, http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=95
31. _, L. Rainie, J. Horrigan, A. Lenhart, T. Spooner, and C. Carter. 2000. Trust and privacy online: Why Americans want to re-write the rules. Washington, DC: The Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/ reports/toc.asp?Report=19
32. _, and L. Rainie, 2002. Vital decisions: How Internet users decide what Information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Washington, DC: The Pew Internet & American Life Project, http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/ toc.asp?Report=59
33. Freeman, K. 2002 An examination of factors that affect the credibility of health information on the Internet. Master's thesis, University of Washington.
34. Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd. 1996. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk analysis 16:473-486.
35. _. 1997. The elaboration likelihood model and communication about food risks. Risk analysis 17:759-770.
36. Friedman, B., P. H. Kahn, and D. C. Howe. 2000. Trust online. Communications of the ACM 43 (12): 34-40.
37. Gastel, B. 1998. Health writer's handbook. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
38. Gaziano, C., and K. McGrath. 1986. Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism quarterly 63:451-462.
39. Graphic, Visualization, and Usability Center (GVU). 1999. 10th WWW user survey. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology. http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/ user_surveys/survey-1998-10/
40. Gunther, A. C. 1992. Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public opinion quarterly 56:147-167.
41. Guttman, N., D. Boccher-Lattimore, and C. T. Salmon. 1998. Credibility of information from official sources on HIV/AIDS transmission. Public health reports 113:465-471.
42. Health Internet Ethics (HIE). 2000. Health Internet ethics: Ethical principles for offering health services to consumers. http://www.hiethics.com/ Principles/index.asp
43. Health on the Net Foundation (HON). 1997. HON code of conduct for medical and health Web sites. Geneva, Switzerland: Health on the Net Foundation. http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html
44. _. 1999. Fifth HON survey on the evolution of Internet usage for health purposes. Geneva, Switzerland: Health on the Net Foundation. http://www.hon.ch/Survey/ResultsSummary_oct_nov99.html
45. _. 2001. Evolution of Internet use for health purposes. Geneva, Switzerland: Health on the Net Foundation, http://www.hon.ch/Survey/FebMar2001/ survey.html
46. Health Summit Working Group (HSWG). 1998. Criteria for assessing the quality of health Information on the Internet. McLean, VA: Health Information Technology Systems, Mitretek Systems, http://hitiweb.mitretek.org/hswg/default. asp
47. Hellawell, G. O., K. J. Turner, K. J. Le Monnier, and S. F. Brewster. 2000. Urology and the Internet: An evaluation of Internet use by urology patients and of information available on urological topics. BJU International 86:191-194.
48. Horrigan, J. B., and L. Rainie. 2002. Getting serious online. Washington, D.O.: Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/ reports/toc.asp?Report=55
49. Houston, T. K., and J. J. Allison. 2003. Users of Internet health information: Differences by health status. Journal of medical Internet research 5 (4): e7.
50. Hovland, C. I., and W. Weiss. 1951. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public opinion quarterly 15:635-650.
51. Internet Healthcare Coalition (IHC). 2000. eHealth code of ethics. Newtown, PA: Internet Healthcare Coalition. http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/ ethics/ehcode.html
52. _. 2002. Tips for health consumers: Finding quality health information on the Internet. Newtown, PA: Internet Healthcare Coalition. http://www. ihealthcoalitlon.org/content/tips.html
53. Isakson, C. S., and J. H. Spyridakis. 1999. The influence of semantics and syntax on what readers remember. Technical communication 46:366-381.
54. Johnson, T. J., and B. K. Kaye. 1998. Cruising is believing? Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism and mass communication quarterly 75:325-340.
55. Jones, S., M. Wilkens, P. Morris, and M. Masera. 2000. Trust requirements in e-business. Communications of the ACM 43 (12): 81-87.
56. Kaufman, D. G., M. F. Stasson, and J. W. Hart. 1999. Are the tabloids always wrong or is that just what we think? Need for cognition and perceptions of articles in print media. Journal of applied social psychology 29:1984-1997.
57. Lasica, J. D. 2002. Online news: Credibility Gap Ahead? Online journalism review, April 17. http://www.ojr.org/ojr/lasica/1019079841.php
58. Latthe, P. M. 2000. Quality of medical information about menorrhagia on the Worldwide Web. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 107:39-43.
59. Licciardone, J. C., P. Smith-Barbaro, and S. T. Coleridge. 2001. Use of the Internet as a resource for consumer health information: Results of the second osteopathic survey of health care in America (OSTEOSURV-II). Journal of medical Internet research 3 (4): e31.
60. Meyer, P. 1988. Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism quarterly 65:567-574.
61. National Cancer Institute (NCI). 2002. How to evaluate health information on the Internet: Questions and answers, http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/2_10.htm
62. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMSD). 2000. How to find medical information. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
63. Nielsen, J. 2000. Designing Web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
64. Nielsen, J. 1999. Trust or bust: Communicating trustworthiness in Web design. Nielsen's Alertbox, March 7. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990307.html
65. Olson, J. S., and G. M. Olson. 2000. i2i trust in e-commerce. Communications of the ACM 43 (12): 41-44.
66. Pandolfi, C., P. Impicciatore, and B. Bonati. 2000. Parents on the Web: Risks for quality management of cough in children. Pediatrics 105 (1): e1.
67. Pennbridge, J., R. Moya, and L Rodrigues. 1999. Questionnaire survey of California consumers' use and rating of sources of health care information including the Internet. Western journal of medicine 171:302-306.
68. Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
69. Price, J. 2000. The complete idiot's guide to online medical resources. Indianapolis, IN: QUE, division of Macmillan.
70. Priester, J. R., and R. E. Petty. 1995. Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of source honesty. Personality and social psychology bulletin 21 : 637-654.
71. Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA). 2002. A matter of trust: What users want from Web sites. Yonkers, NY: Consumer WebWatch. http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/1_abstract.htm
72. Raphael, T. E., A. C. Myers, P. Freebody, W. C. Tirre, and M. Fritz. 1980. Contrasting, the effects of some text variables on comprehension and ratings of comprehensibility. Technical Report No. 190. Urbana, IL; Cambridge, MA: Illinois University, Center for the Study of Reading; Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.
73. Resnick, P., R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman, and K. Kuwabara. 2000. Reputation systems. Communications of the ACM 43 (12): 45-48.
74. Self, C. C. 1996. Credibility. In An integrated approach to communication theory and research, eds. M. B. Salwen and D. W. Stacks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
75. Shneiderman, B. 2000. Designing trust into user experiences. Communications of the ACM 57 (12): 57-59.
76. Silberg, W. M., G. D. Lundberg, and R. A. Musacchio. 1997. Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet. Journal of the American Medical Association 277:1244-1245.
77. Spyridakis, J. H. 2000. Guidelines for authoring comprehensible Web pages and evaluating their success. Technical communication 47:359-382.
78. Stanford, J., E. R. Tauber, B. J. Fogg, and L. Marable. 2002. Experts vs. online consumers: A comparative credibility study of health and finance Web sites: Consumer WebWatch. http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/news/ report3_credibilityresearch/slicedbread_abstract.htm
79. Stephenson, J. 1998. Patient pretenders weave tangled "Web" of deceit. Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1297.
80. Stone, T. W., and J. M. Jumper. 2001. Information about age-related macular degeneration on the Internet. Southern medical journal 94:22-25.
81. Suarez-Almazor, M. E., C. J. Kendall, and M. Dorgan. 2001. Surfing the net - Information on the World Wide Web for persons with arthritis: Patient empowerment or patient deceit? Journal of rheumatology 28:1-2.
82. Sundar, S. S. 1998. Effect of source attribution on perception of online news stories. Journalism and mass communication quarterly 75:55-68.
83. _. 1999. Exploring receivers' criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism and mass communication quarterly 76:373-386.
84. _. 2000. Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism and mass communication quarterly 77:480-499.
85. Swenson, J., H. Constantinides, and L. Gurak. 2002. Audience-drive Web design: An application to medical Web sites. Technical communication 49:341-352.
86. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). 2003. Surveying the Digital Future: UCLA Center for Communication Policy. http://www.ccp.ucla.edu/pages/ internet-report.asp
87. Wade, S. E., and R. B. Adams. 1990. Effects of importance and interest on recall of biographical text. Journal of reading behavior 22:331-351.
88. Weisbord, S. D., J. B. Soule, and P. L. Kimmel. 1997. Poison on line: Acute renal failure caused by oil of wormwood purchased through the Internet. New England journal of medicine 337:825-827.
89. West, M. D. 1994. Validating a scale for the measurement of credibility: A covariance structure modeling approach. Journalism quarterly 71 (1): 159-168.
90. Winker, M. A., A. Flanagin, B. Chi-Lum, J. White, K. Andrews, R. L. Kennett, C. D. DeAngelis, and R. A. Musacchio. 2000. Guidelines for medical and health information on the Internet. Journal of the American Medical Association 283:1600-1606.
91. Winn, W., and K. Beck. 2002. The persuasive power of design elements on an e-commerce Web site. Technical communication 49:17-35.
92. Zhang, P., G. M. von Dran, P. Blake, and V. Pipithsuksunt. 2001. Important design features in different web site domains. e-service journal 1:77-91.