Analysis of eHealth search perspectives among female college students in the health professions using Q methodology

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 258-272

  Stellefson, Michael ^a   Hanik, Bruce ^b   Don Chaney, J ^a   Tennant, Bethany ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

College students; eHealth literacy; Health professionals; Internet search; Medical education; Q methodology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL PROFESSION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

FEMALE; HEALTH OCCUPATIONS; HUMANS; INTERNET; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84862015253     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1969     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Fox S. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2011. Health topics: 80% of Internet users look for health information online URL: http://pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/ Reports/2011/PIP-HealthTopics.pdf [accessed 2011-10-09] [WebCite Cache ID 62JTk4T9o]
2. Casebeer L, Bennett N, Kristofco R, Carillo A, Centor R. Physician Internet medical information seeking and on-line continuing education use patterns. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002;22(1):33-42. [doi: 10.1002/chp. 1340220105] [Medline: 12004639]
3. Cullen RJ. In search of evidence: family practitioners' use of the Internet for clinical information. J Med Libr Assoc 2002 Oct; 90(4):370-379. [Medline: 12398243] (Pubitemid 36329120)
4. Hughes B, Joshi I, Lemonde H, Wareham J. Junior physician's use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: a qualitative study. Int J Med Inform 2009 Oct; 78(10):645-655. [doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.04.008] [Medline: 19501017]
5. Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ. Using Web 2.0 technologies to enhance evidence-based medical information. J Health Commun 2011;16 Suppl 1:45-58. [doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.589881] [Medline: 21843095]
6. van der Vaart R, van Deursen AJ, Drossaert CH, Taal E, van Dijk JA, van de Laar MA. Does the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) measure what it intends to measure? Validation of a Dutch version of the eHEALS in two adult populations. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e86 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1840] [Medline: 22071338]
7. Xie B. Effects of an eHealth literacy intervention for older adults. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e90 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1880] [Medline: 22052161]
8. Chan CV, Kaufman DR. A framework for characterizing eHealth literacy demands and barriers. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e94 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1750] [Medline: 22094891]
9. Higher Education Research Institute. The American freshman: National norms for Fall.: Higher Education Research Institute; 2007. 2008 URL: http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/briefs/brief-012408-07FreshmanNorms.pdf [accessed 2011-10-09] [WebCite Cache ID 62JPjFe7a]
10. Eysenbach G, Köhler C. 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. BMJ 2002 Mar. 9;324(7337):573-577. [Medline: 11884321] (Pubitemid 34214337)
11. Zeng QT, Kogan S, Plovnick RM, Crowell J, Lacroix EM, Greenes RA. Positive attitudes and failed queries: an exploration of the conundrums of consumer health information retrieval. Int J Med Inform 2004 Feb; 73(1):45-55. [doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2003.12.015] [Medline: 15036078] (Pubitemid 38229187)
12. Watson N, Wyld PJ. The importance of general practitioner information in selection of volunteers for clinical trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992 Feb; 33(2):197-199. [Medline: 1550701]
13. Hughes B, Wareham J, Joshi I. Doctors' online information needs, cognitive search strategies, and judgments of information quality and cognitive authority: How predictive judgments introduce bias into cognitive search models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009;61(3):n/a-452. [doi: 10.1002/asi.21245]
14. Stellefson M, Hanik B, Chaney B, Chaney D, Tennant B, Chavarria EA. eHealth literacy among college students: a systematic review with implications for eHealth education. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e102 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1703] [Medline: 22155629]
15. Association of American Medical Colleges. Recommendations for clinical skills curricula for undergraduate medical education. 2008. URL: https://www.aamc.org/download/130608/data/clinicalskills-oct09.qxd.pdf.pdf [accessed 2011-10-09] [WebCite Cache ID 62JRiiJWE]
16. Head AJ, Eisenberg MB. Finding context: What today's college students say about conducting research in the digital age. < University of Washington: Project Information Literacy Progress Report; 2009. Finding context: What today's college students say about conducting research in the digital age URL: http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL-ProgressReport-2-2009.pdf [accessed 2011-10-09] [WebCite Cache ID 62JRGMXoU]
17. Hanik B, Stellefson M. EHealth literacy competencies among undergraduate health education students. Int Electronic J of Health Educ 2011;14:46-58 [FREE Full text] [WebCite Cache]
18. Kim H, Park SY, Bozeman I. Online health information search and evaluation: observations and semi-structured interviews with college students and maternal health experts. Health Info Libr J 2011 Sep; 28(3):188-199. [doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00948.x] [Medline: 21831218]
19. Ivanitskaya L, O'Boyle I, Casey AM. Health information literacy and competencies of information age students: results from the interactive online Research Readiness Self-Assessment (RRSA). J Med Internet Res 2006;8(2):e6 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.8.2.e6] [Medline: 16867969] (Pubitemid 44030754)
20. Thomas DM, Watson RT. Q-sorting and MIS research: A primer. Comm Assoc Inform Syst 2002;8:141-156 [FREE Full text] [WebCite Cache]
21. Stephenson W. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1953.
22. Webler T, Danielson S, Tuler S. Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA:.: Social and Environmental Research Institute; 2009. URL: http://www.seri-us.org/sites/ default/files/Qprimer.pdf [accessed 2011-10-09] [WebCite Cache ID 62JQznglP]
23. Thompson B. Validity of an evaluator typology. Educ Eval Policy An 1980;2(2):59-65 [FREE Full text] [WebCite Cache]
24. Thompson B. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA); 2004.
25. Akhtar-Danesh N, Baumann A, Cordingley L. Q-methodology in nursing research: a promising method for the study of subjectivity. West J Nurs Res 2008 Oct; 30(6):759-773. [doi: 10.1177/0193945907312979] [Medline: 18337548]
26. Cordingley L, Webb C, Hillier V. Q methodology. Nurse Researcher 2005;4:31-45.
27. McCaughan D, Thompson C, Cullum N, Sheldon TA, Thompson DR. Acute care nurses' perceptions of barriers to using research information in clinical decision-making. J Adv Nurs 2002 Jul; 39(1):46-60. [Medline: 12074751]
28. Thompson C, McCaughan D, Cullum N, Sheldon TA, Mulhall A, Thompson DR. Research information in nurses' clinical decision-making: what is useful? J Adv Nurs 2001 Nov; 36(3):376-388. [Medline: 11686752] (Pubitemid 33612954)
29. Valenta AL, Wigger U. Q-methodology: definition and application in health care informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997 Dec; 4(6):501-510 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 9391937] (Pubitemid 127431664)
30. Dennis KE, Goldberg AP. Weight control self-efficacy types and transitions affect weight-loss outcomes in obese women. Addict Behav 1996 Feb; 21(1):103-116. [Medline: 8729712] (Pubitemid 26080748)
31. Sell DK, Brown SR. Q methodology as a bridge between qualitative and quantitative research: Application to the analysis of attitude change in foreign study program participants. In: Vacca JL, Johnson HA, editors. Qualitative research in Education. Kent, OH: Kent State University; 1984:79-87.
32. Brown SR. Operant Subjectivity; 16:91-138. 1993. A primer on Q methodology URL: http://projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL-ProgressReport-2-2009.pdf [accessed 2011-10-09] [WebCite Cache ID 62JRS2QTT]
33. Anderson JR, Lebiere C. The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.
34. Ritter S, Anderson JR, Koedinger KR, Corbett A. Cognitive tutor: applied research in mathematics education. Psychon Bull Rev 2007 Apr; 14(2):249-255. [Medline: 17694909]
35. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications; 1985.
36. Brown SR. On the use of variance designs in Q methodology. Psych Rec 1970;20:179-189.
37. Dennis KE. Q methodology: relevance and application to nursing research. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1986 Apr; 8(3):6-17. [Medline: 3083769]
38. Gorsuch RL, Dreger RM. "Big Jiffy": A more sophisticated factor analysis and rotation program. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1979;39(1):209-214. [doi: 10.1177/001316447903900131]
39. Cattel RB. The data box: Its ordering of total resources in terms of possible relational systems. In: Cattel RB, editor. Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally; 1966:67-128.
40. Stellefson ML, Hanik BW, Chaney BH, Chaney JD. Factor retention in EFA: strategies for health behavior researchers. Am J Health Behav 2009 Oct; 33(5):587-599. [Medline: 19296749]
41. Zientek LR, Thompson B. Applying the bootstrap to the multivariate case: bootstrap component/factor analysis. Behav Res Methods 2007 May; 39(2):318-325. [Medline: 17695360]
42. Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin; 2003.
43. Percheski C, Hargittai E. Health information-seeking in the digital age. J Am Coll Health 2011 Apr; 59(5):379-386. [doi: 10.1080/07448481.2010.513406] [Medline: 21500056]
44. Buhi ER, Daley EM, Fuhrmann HJ, Smith SA. An observational study of how young people search for online sexual health information. J Am Coll Health 2009;58(2):101-111. [doi: 10.1080/07448480903221236] [Medline: 19892646]
45. Fox S, Jones S. Pew Internet and American Life Project.: Per Research Center; 2009. The Social Life of Health Information URL: http://www.pewinternet. org/~/media//Files/Reports/2009/PIP-Health-2009.pdf [accessed 2011-10-13] [WebCite Cache ID 62PS6g5qn]
46. Pan B, Hembrooke H, Joachims T, Lorigo L, Gay G, Granka L. In Google we trust: users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007;12(3):801-823. [doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101. 2007.00351.x]
47. Norman C. eHealth literacy 2.0: problems and opportunities with an evolving concept. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e125 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.2035] [Medline: 22193243]
48. Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res 2008;10(3):e22 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1030] [Medline: 18725354]
49. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287(20):2691-2700 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 12020305] (Pubitemid 34533548)
50. Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ. The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of Web-based information. New Media & Society 2007;9(2):319-342. [doi: 10.1177/1461444807075015]
51. Nihalani PK, Wilson HE, Thomas G, Robinson DH. What determines high-and low-performing groups? The superstar effect. Journal of Advanced Academics 2010;21(3):500-529. [doi: 10.1177/1932202X1002100306]
52. Ivanitskaya L, Brookins-Fisher J, O'Boyle I, Vibbert D, Erofeev D, Fulton L. Dirt cheap and without prescription: how susceptible are young US consumers to purchasing drugs from rogue internet pharmacies? J Med Internet Res 2010;12(2):e11 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1520] [Medline: 20439253]
53. Covell DG, Uman GC, Manning PR. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med 1985 Oct; 103(4):596-599. [Medline: 4037559]
54. Kingsley KV, Kingsley K. A case study for teaching information literacy skills. BMC Med Educ 2009 Jan; 9:7 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-9-7] [Medline: 19178715]
55. Kingsley K, Galbraith GM, Herring M, Stowers E, Stewart T, Kingsley KV. Why not just Google it? An assessment of information literacy skills in a biomedical science curriculum. BMC Med Educ 2011;11:17 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-11-17] [Medline: 21518448]
56. Levine AE, Bebermeyer RD, Chen JW, Davis D, Harty C. Development of an interdisciplinary course in information resources and evidence-based dentistry. J Dent Educ 2008 Sep; 72(9):1067-1076 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 18768449]
57. Corr S. An introduction to Q-methodology, a research technique. Brit J of Occupational Therapy 2001;64(6):293-297.
58. Barbosa JC, Willoughby P, Rosenberg CA, Mrtek RG. Statistical methodology: VII. Q-methodology, a structural analytic approach to medical subjectivity. Acad Emerg Med 1998 Oct; 5(10):1032-1040. [Medline: 9862598] (Pubitemid 28463195)