Understanding online health information: Evaluation, tools, and strategies

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 183-189

  Beaunoyer, Elisabeth ^a,b   Arsenault, Marianne ^a,b   Lomanowska, Anna M ^c   Guitton, Matthieu J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^b CENTRE DE RECHERCHE DE L INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE EN SANTÉ MENTALE DE QUÉBEC   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Assessment tools; Health literacy; Mixed methods; Online health information; Readability; Suitability

Indexed keywords

EMOTIONAL CONTENT; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MASS MEDIUM; MEDICAL INFORMATION; ONLINE SYSTEM; READING; REVIEW; UNDERSTANDABILITY; USABILITY; COMPREHENSION; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; INTERNET;

COMPREHENSION; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; HEALTH COMMUNICATION; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; INTERNET; READING;

EID: 84997170477     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.08.028     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. [1] Brossard, D., New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 (2013), 14096–14101.
2. [2] Jahnke, I., Dynamics of social roles in a knowledge management community. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (2010), 533–546.
3. [3] Clement, M., Guitton, M.J., Interacting with bots online: users’ reactions to actions of automated programs in Wikipedia. Comput. Hum. Behav. 50 (2015), 66–75.
4. [4] Thomas, C., Sheth, A., Web Wisdom: an essay on how Web 2.0 and Semantic Web can foster a global knowledge society. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27 (2011), 1285–1293.
5. [5] Arsenault, M., Blouin, M.-J., Guitton, M.J., Information quality and dynamics of patients’ interactions on tonsillectomy web resources. Internet Interv. 4 (2016), 99–104.
6. [6] Sorensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., Brand, H., Health Literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health, 12, 2012.
7. [7] Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Harris, P.R., Fishwick, L., How do patients evaluate and make use of online information?. Soc. Sci. Med. 64 (2007), 1853–1962.
8. [8] Mackert, M., Champlin, S.M., Holton, A., Munoz, I., Damásio, M.J., EHealth and health literacy: a research methodology review. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 19 (2014), 516–528.
9. [9] Levy, H., Janke, A.T., Langa, K.M., Health literacy and the digital device among older americans. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 30 (2015), 284–289.
10. [10] Duren-Winfield, V., Onsomu, E.O., Case, D.L., Pignone, M., Miller, D. Jr., Health literacy and computer-assisted instruction: usability and patient preference. J. Health Commun. 20 (2015), 491–498.
11. [11] Yin, H.S., Johnson, M., Mandelsohn, A.L., Abrams, M.A., Sanders, L.M., Dreyer, B.P., The health literacy of parents in the United States: a nationally representative study. Pediatrics 124 (2009), S289–S298.
12. [12] Berkman, N., Sheridan, S., Donahue, K., Halpern, D., Crotty, K., Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 155 (2011), 97–107.
13. [13] DeWalt, D.A., Berkman, N.D., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K.N., Pignone, M.P., Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 19 (2004), 1228–1239.
14. [14] Sentell, T.L., Halpin, H.A., Importance of adult literacy in understanding health disparities. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 21 (2006), 862–866.
15. [15] Cherla, D.V., Sanghvi, S., Choudhry, O.J., Liu, J.K., Eloy, J.A., Readability Assessment of Internet-based patient education materials related to endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 122 (2012), 1649–1654.
16. [16] Eloy, J.A., Li, S., Kasabwala, K., Agarwal, N., Hansberry, D.R., Baredes, S., Setzen, M., Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association websites. Otolaryng. Head Neck 47 (2012), 848–854.
17. [17] Hansberry, D.R., Agarwal, N., Gonzales, S.F., Baker, S.R., Are we effectively informing patients? A quantitative analysis of on-line patient education resources from the American Society of Neuroradiology. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 35 (2014), 1270–1275.
18. [18] Weintraub, D., Maliski, S.L., Fink, A., Choe, S., Litwin, M.S., Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Educ. Couns. 55 (2004), 275–280.
19. [19] Guitton, M.J., Online maritime health information: an overview of the situation. Int. Marit. Health 66 (2015), 139–144.
20. [20] Laurent, M.R., Vickers, T.J., Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?. J Am Med. Inform. Assn. 16 (2009), 471–479.
21. [21] Meade, C.D., Smith, C.F., Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ. Couns. 17 (1991), 153–158.
22. [22] Wang, L.W., Miller, M.J., Schmitt, M.R., Wen, F.K., Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 9 (2013), 503–516.
23. [23] Svider, P.F., Agarwal, N., Choudhry, O.J., Hajart, A.F., Baredes, S., Liu, J.K., Eloy, J.A., Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology − head and neck surgery departments. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 34 (2013), 31–35.
24. [24] Guitton, M.J., Swimming with mermaids: communication and social density in the second life merfolk community. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48 (2015), 226–235.
25. [25] Cherla, D.V., Sanghvi, S., Choudhry, O.J., Jyung, R.W., Eloy, J.A., Liu, J.K., Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to acoustic neuromas. Otol. Neurotol. 34 (2013), 1349–1354.
26. [26] National Institutes of Health, How to Write Easy to Read Health Materials. 2013 http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html 2013 (accessed 06.01.15).
27. [27] Friedman, D.B., Hoffman-Goetz, L., A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ. Behav. 33 (2006), 352–373.
28. [28] Lomanowska, A.M., Guitton, M.J., Online intimacy and well-being in the digital age. Internet Interv. 4 (2016), 138–144.
29. [29] Blank, T.O., Schmidt, S.D., Vangsness, S.A., Monteiro, A.K., Santagata, P.V., Differences among breast and prostate cancer online support groups. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (2010), 1400–1404.
30. [30] Guadagno, R.E., Muscanell, N.L., Okdie, B.M., Burk, N.M., Ward, T.B., Even in virtual environments vomen shop and men build: a social role perspective on second life. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24 (2011), 304–308.
31. [31] D'Andrea, A., Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., Guzzo, T., Approaches, tools and applications for sentiment analysis implementation. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 125 (2015), 26–33.
32. [32] Goncalves, P., Arajo, M., Benevenuto, F., Cha, M., Comparing and combining sentiment analysis methods. Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Online Social Networks, ACM, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2013, 27–38.
33. [33] Taboada, M., Brooke, J., Tofiloski, M., Voll, K., Stede, M., Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Comput. Linguist. 37 (2011), 267–307.
34. [34] Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., Paltoglou, G., Sentiment strength detection for the social web. J. Am. Soc. Info. Sci. Technol. 63 (2012), 163–173.
35. [35] Kralj Novak, P., Smailovi, J., Sluban, B., Mozeti, I., Sentiment of emojis. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0144296.
36. [36] Bhattacharya, S., Srinivasan, P., Polgreen, P., Engagement with health agencies on twitter. PLoS One, 9, 2014, e112235.
37. [37] Belen Sağlam, R., Taskaya-Termizel, T., A framework for automatic information quality ranking of diabetes websites. Inform. Health Soc. Care 40 (2015), 45–66.
38. [38] Cole-Lewis, H., Varghese, A., Sanders, A., Schwarz, M., Pugatch, J., Augustson, E., Assessing electronic cigarette-related tweets for sentiment and content using supervised machine learning. J. Med. Internet Res., 17, 2015, e208.
39. [39] Denecke, K., Deng, Y., Sentiment analysis in medical settings: new opportunities and challenges. Artif. Intell. Med. 64 (2015), 17–27.
40. [40] Rastegar-Mojarad, M., Ye, Z., Wall, D., Murali, N., Lin, S., Collecting and analyzing patient experiences of health care from social media. JMIR Res. Protoc., 4, 2015, e78.
41. [41] Bantum, E.O.C., Owen, J.E., Evaluating the validity of computerized content analysis programs for identification of emotional expression in cancer narratives. Psychol. Assess. 21 (2009), 79–88.
42. [42] Crook, B., Glowacki, E.M., Love, B., Jones, B.L., Macpherson, C.F., Johnson, R.H., Hanging by a thread: exploring the features of nonresponse in an online young adult cancer survivorship support community. J. Cancer Surviv. 10 (2016), 185–193.
43. [43] Alpers, G.W., Winzelberg, A.J., Classen, C., Roberts, H., Dev, P., Koopman, C., Taylor, C.B., Evaluation of computerized text analysis in an Internet breast cancer support group. Comput. Hum. Behav. 21 (2005), 361–376.
44. [44] Pennebaker, J.W., Francis, M.E., Cognitive, emotional, and language processes in disclosure. Cogn. Emotion 10 (1996), 601–626.
45. [45] Tausczik, Y.R., Pennebaker, J.W., The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 29 (2010), 24–54.
46. [46] Lortie, C.L., Guitton, M.J., Judgment of the humanness of an interlocutor is in the eye of the beholder. PLoS One, 6, 2011, e25085.
47. [47] Dino, A., Reysen, S., Branscombe, N.R., Online interactions between group members who differ in status. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 28 (2009), 85–93.
48. [48] Pfeil, U., Arjan, R., Zaphiris, P., Age differences in online social networking: a study of user profiles and the social capital devide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25 (2009), 643–654.
49. [49] Hexem, K.R., Miller, V.A., Carroll, K.W., Faerber, J.A., Feudtner, C., Putting on a happy face: emotional expression in parents of children with serious illness. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 45 (2013), 542–551.
50. [50] Baccianella, S., Esuli, A., Sebastiani, F., SentiWordNet 3.0: an enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10) European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Valletta, Malta, 2010.
51. [51] Miller, G.A., WordNet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM. 38 (1995), 39–41.
52. [52] Rodrigues, R.G., das Dores, D.M., Camilo-Junior, C.G., Rosa, T.C., SentiHealth-Cancer: a sentiment analysis tool to help detecting moodof patients in online social networks. Int. J. Med. Inform. 85 (2016), 80–95.
53. [53] C.C. Doak, L. Doak, J.H. Root. Teaching patients with low literacy skills, second, Philadelphia, 1996.
54. [54] Rhee, R.L., Von Feldt, J.M., Schumacher, R., Merkel, P.A., Readability and suitability assessment of patient education materials in rheumatic diseases. Arthrit. Care Res. 65 (2013), 1702–1706.
55. [55] Tian, C., Champlin, S., Mackert, M., Lazard, A., Agrawal, D., Readability, suitability and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening. Gastrointest. Endosc. 80 (2014), 284–290.
56. [56] Corcoran, N., Ahmad, F., The readability and suitability of sexual health promotion leaflets. Patient Educ. Couns. 99 (2016), 284–286.
57. [57] Clayton, L.H., TEMPtEd: development and psychometric properties of a tool to evaluate material used in patient education. J. Adv. Nurs. 65 (2009), 2229–2238.
58. [58] Shoemaker, S.J., Wolf, M.S., Brach, C., Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ. Couns. 96 (2014), 395–403.
59. [59] Helitzer, D., Hollis, C., Cotner, J., Oestreicher, N., Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control 16 (2009), 70–78.
60. [60] Kloza, E.M., Haddow, P.K., Halliday, J.V., O'Brien, B.M., Lambert-Messerlian, G.M., Palomaki, G.E., Evaluation of patient education materials: the exemple of circulating cell free DNA testing for aneuploidy. J. Genet. Couns. 24 (2015), 259–266.
61. [61] Bernier, M.J., Establishing the psychometric properties of a scale for evaluating quality in printed education materials. Patient Educ. Couns. 29 (1996), 283–299.
62. [62] Charnock, D., Shepperd, S., Needham, G., Gann, R., DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J. Epidemiol. Commun. H 53 (1999), 105–111.
63. [63] Duenas-Garcia, O.F., Kandadai, P., Flynn, M.K., Patterson, D., Saini, J., O'Dell, K., Patient-focused websites related to stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a DISCERN quality analysis. Int. Urogynecol. J. 26 (2015), 875–880.
64. [64] Cerminara, C., Santarone, M.E., Casarelli, L., Curatolo, P., Malhany, N.E., Use of the DISCERN tool for evaluating web searches in childhood epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 41 (2014), 119–121.
65. [65] Pusz, M.D., Brietzke, S.E., How good is google? The quality of otolaryngology information on the internet. Otolaryng. Head Neck 147 (2012), 462–465.
66. [66] Smith, F., Readability, suitability and comprehensibility in patient education materials for Swedish patients with colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery: a mixed method design. Patient Educ. Couns. 94 (2014), 202–209.
67. [67] Avis, J.L.S., Komarnicki, A., Farmer, A.P., Holt, N.L., Perez, A., Spence, N., Ball, G.D.C., Tools and resources for preventing childhood obesity in primary care: a method of evaluation and preliminary assessment. Patient Educ. Couns., 2015.
68. [68] Kaphingst, K.A., Kreuter, M.W., Casey, C., Leme, L., Thompson, T., Cheng, M.R., Jacobsen, H., Sterling, R., Oguntimein, J., Filler, C., Culbert, A., Rooney, M., Lapka, C., Health literacy INDEX: development, reliability, and validity of a new tool for evaluating the health literacy demands of health information materials. J. Health Commun. 17 (2012), 203–221.
69. [69] Smith, S.G., Curtis, L.M., O'Conor, R., Federman, A.D., Wolf, M.S., ABCs or 123s? The independent contributions of literacy and numeracy skills on health task performance among older adults. Patient Educ. Couns. 98 (2015), 991–997.
70. [70] Zellmer, C., Zimdars, P., Parker, S., Safdar, N., Evaluating the usefulness of patient education materials on surgical site infection: a systematic assessment. Am. J. Infect. Control 43 (2015), 167–168.
71. [71] Lomanowska, A.M., Guitton, M.J., My avatar is pregnant! Representation of pregnancy, birth, and maternity in a virtual world. Comput. Hum. Behav. 31 (2014), 322–331.
72. [72] Diviani, N., van den Putte, B., Meppelink, C.S., van Weert, J.C.M., Exploring the role of health literacy in the evaluation of online health information: insights from a mixed-methods study. Patient Educ Couns. 99 (2016), 1017–1025.
73. [73] McPherson, A.C., Gofine, M.L., Stinson, J., Seeing is believing? A mixed-Methods study exploring the quality and perceived trustworthiness of online information about chronic conditions aimed at children and young people. Health Commun. 29 (2014), 473–482.
74. [74] Davis, T.C., Williams, M.V., Marin, R., Parker, R.M., Glass, J., Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J. Clin. 52 (2002), 151–162.
75. [75] Foltz, A., Sullivan, J., Reading level, learning presentation preference, and desire for information among cancer patients. J. Cancer Educ. 11 (1996), 32–38.
76. [76] Finnie, R.K.C., Felder, T.M., Kneuper Linder, S., Dolan Mullen, P., Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and web-based materials. J. Cancer Educ. 25 (2010), 497–505.
77. [77] Guitton, M.J., The immersive impact of meta-media in a virtual world. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (2012), 450–455.