scholarly journals Consumer Evaluation of the Quality of Online Health Information: Systematic Literature Review of Relevant Criteria and Indicators

10.2196/12522 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. e12522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yalin Sun ◽  
Yan Zhang ◽  
Jacek Gwizdka ◽  
Ciaran B Trace
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Consumer Evaluation ◽  
Criteria And Indicators

scholarly journals Consumer Evaluation of the Quality of Online Health Information: Systematic Literature Review of Relevant Criteria and Indicators (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yalin Sun ◽  
Yan Zhang ◽  
Jacek Gwizdka ◽  
Ciaran B. Trace
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Information Quality ◽  
Quality Evaluation ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Consumer Evaluation ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
User Groups

BACKGROUND As the quality of online health information remains questionable, there is a pressing need to understand how consumers evaluate this information. Past reviews identified content-, source-, and individual-related factors that influence consumer judgment in this area. However, systematic knowledge concerning the evaluation process, that is, why and how these factors influence the evaluation behavior, is lacking. OBJECTIVE This review aims (1) to identify criteria (rules that reflect notions of value and worth) that consumers use to evaluate the quality of online health information and the indicators (properties of information objects to which criteria are applied to form judgments) they use to support the evaluation in order to achieve a better understanding of the process of information quality evaluation and (2) to explicate the relationship between indicators and criteria to provide clear guidelines for designers of consumer health information systems. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed in seven digital reference databases including Medicine, Psychology, Communication, and Library and Information Science to identify empirical studies that report how consumers directly and explicitly describe their evaluation of online health information quality. Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. A qualitative content analysis was performed to identify quality evaluation criteria, indicators, and their relationships. RESULTS We identified 25 criteria and 165 indicators. The most widely reported criteria used by consumers were trustworthiness, expertise, and objectivity. The indicators were related to source, content, and design. Among them, 114 were positive indicators (entailing positive quality judgments), 35 were negative indicators (entailing negative judgments), and 16 indicators had both positive and negative quality influence, depending on contextual factors (eg, source and individual differences) and criteria applied. The most widely reported indicators were site owners/sponsors; consensus among multiple sources; characteristics of writing and language; advertisements; content authorship; and interface design. CONCLUSIONS Consumer evaluation of online health information is a complex cost-benefit analysis process that involves the use of a wide range of criteria and a much wider range of quality indicators. There are commonalities in the use of criteria across user groups and source types, but the differences are hard to ignore. Evidently, consumers’ health information evaluation can be characterized as highly subjective and contextualized, and sometimes, misinformed. These findings invite more research into how different user groups evaluate different types of online sources and a personalized approach to educate users about evaluating online health information quality.

A new tool for assessing the quality of online health information on the McMaster Optimal Aging Portal

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Dobbins ◽  
Susannah Watson ◽  
Kristin Read ◽  
Kelly Graham ◽  
Reza Yousefi Nooraie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Optimal Aging

Quality Evaluation of Health Information Systems: A Systematic Literature Review (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Noël ◽  
Carla Taramasco ◽  
Gastón Márquez
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Quality Evaluation ◽  
Health Information System ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Current Scenario ◽  
Patient Care Quality ◽  
Critical Components

BACKGROUND Evaluating Health Information System (HIS) quality is strategically advantageous for improving patient care quality. Nevertheless, there is little research evidence identifying and describing what standards, processes, and tools are used to evaluate HIS quality. OBJECTIVE This study aims to illustrate, detail, and discuss the current scenario regarding the standards, norms, processes, and tools used to evaluate HIS quality. METHODS We conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) using review guidelines focused on software and systems. We examined seven electronic databases (Scopus, ACM, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplorer, the Web of Science and PubMed) to search and select primary studies. Three researchers and three collaborators participated in the review and quality assessment process of the studies. RESULTS We identified 17 primary studies that have been published in journals and conferences. We found that most of the primary studies address quality evaluation from a management perspective. Second, there is little explicit and pragmatic evidence on the processes and tools that allow evaluation of HIS quality. CONCLUSIONS To promote quality evaluation of HISs, it is necessary to define mechanisms and methods that operationalize the standards and norms of HISs. Additionally, it is necessary to create metrics that measure the quality of the most critical components and processes of HISs. CLINICALTRIAL Does not apply to our study

scholarly journals AB0602 IMPACT OF SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS ON PAIN AND FUNCTION IN KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1337.2-1337
Author(s):  
T. W. Swinnen ◽  
M. Willems ◽  
I. Jonkers ◽  
F. P. Luyten ◽  
J. Vanrenterghem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Socioeconomic Factors ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Intervention Effects ◽  
Socioeconomic Outcomes ◽  
And Function ◽  
The Impact

Background:The personal and societal burden of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) urges the research community to identify factors that predict its onset and progression. A mechanistic understanding of disease is currently lacking but needed to develop targeted interventions. Traditionally, risk factors for KOA are termed ‘local’ to the joint or ‘systemic’ referring to whole-body systems. There are however clear indications in the scientific literature that contextual factors such as socioeconomic position merit further scientific scrutiny, in order to justify a more biopsychosocial view on risk factors in KOA.Objectives:The aims of this systematic literature review were to assess the inclusion of socioeconomic factors in KOA research and to identify the impact of socioeconomic factors on pain and function in KOA.Methods:Major bibliographic databases, namely Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane, were independently screened by two reviewers (plus one to resolve conflicts) to identify research articles dealing with socioeconomic factors in the KOA population without arthroplasty. Included studies had to quantify the relationship between socioeconomic factors and pain or function. Main exclusion criteria were: a qualitative design, subject age below 16 years and articles not written in English or Dutch. Methodological quality was assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized (ROB-II) and non-randomized intervention studies (ROBIN-I) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies. Due to heterogeneity of studies with respect to outcomes assessed and analyses performed, no meta-analysis was performed.Results:Following de-duplication, 7639 articles were available for screening (120 conflicts resolved without a third reader). In 4112 articles, the KOA population was confirmed. 1906 (25%) were excluded because of knee arthroplasty and 1621 (21%) because of other issues related to the population definition. Socioeconomic factors could not be identified in 4058 (53%) papers and were adjusted for in 211 (3%) articles. In the remaining papers covering pain (n=110) and/or function (n=81), education (62%) and race (37%) were most frequently assessed as socioeconomic factors. A huge variety of mainly dichotomous or ordinal socioeconomic outcomes was found without further methodological justification nor sensitivity analysis to unravel the impact of selected categories. Although the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was the most popular instrument to assess pain and function, data pooling was not possible as socioeconomic factors estimates were part of multilevel models in most studies. Overall results showed that lower education and African American race were consistent predictors of pain and poor function, but those effects diminished or disappeared when psychological aspects (e.g. discrimination) or poverty estimates were taken into account. When function was assessed using self-reported outcomes, the impact of socioeconomic factors was more clear versus performance-based instruments. Quality of research was low to moderate and the moderating or mediating impact of socioeconomic factors on intervention effects in KOA is understudied.Conclusion:Research on contextual socioeconomic factors in KOA is insufficiently addressed and their assessment is highly variable methodologically. Following this systematic literature review, we can highlight the importance of implementing a standardised and feasible set of socioeconomic outcomes in KOA trials1, as well as the importance of public availability of research databases including these factors. Future research should prioritise the underlying mechanisms in the effect of especially education and race on pain and function and assess its impact on intervention effects to fuel novel (non-)pharmacological approaches in KOA.References:[1]Smith TO et al. The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis J Rheumatol 2019. 46:981–9.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.

scholarly journals 593 Quality of life following a road traffic injury: a systematic literature review

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. A213.1-A213
Author(s):  
Ritva Rissanen ◽  
Hans-Yngve Berg ◽  
Marie Hasselberg
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Road Traffic ◽  
Road Traffic Injury ◽  
Traffic Injury
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document