| Literature DB >> 35179506 |
Jennifer Claggett1, Brent Kitchens2, Maria Paino3, Kaitlyn Beisecker Levin4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As people increasingly turn to web-based sources for medical information, we offer some insight into what website traits influence patients' credibility assessment. Specifically, we control for brand and content length, while manipulating three website traits: authorship, format, and tone. Furthermore, we focus on medical skepticism to understand how patients with high levels of medical skepticism may react to web-based medical information differently. Medical skepticism is related to a patient's doubts about the value of conventional medical care; therefore, skeptics may have different practices and criteria when conducting their own web-based medical searches.Entities:
Keywords: medical skepticism; mobile phone; web-based information credibility assessment; website traits
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35179506 PMCID: PMC8900904 DOI: 10.2196/29275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Experimental website prompt displaying physician authorship, article format, and experiential presentation tone.
Figure 2Experimental website prompt displaying patient authorship, discussion forum format, and objective presentation tone.
Descriptive statistics (N=2305).
| Variable | Description | Value | |
| Dependent variable: follow web-based medical advice, mean (SD) | This is a continuous variable, ranging from 0 to 4, indicating the likelihood that the respondent will follow the web-based medical advice provided at the end of the prompt (Cronbach α=.94) | 2.97 (0.90) | |
|
| |||
|
| Physician | Dichotomous variable indicating that the experimental prompt was written by a physician (as opposed to a patient) | 1170 (50.76) |
|
| Article | Dichotomous variable indicating that the experimental prompt was written in article format (as opposed to a discussion forum format) | 1171 (50.8) |
|
| Objective | Dichotomous variable indicating that the experimental prompt was written in an objective manner (as opposed to experiential manner) | 1158 (50.24) |
| Medical skepticism, mean (SD) | This is a continuous variable, ranging from 0 to 4, indicating the extent to which the respondent is skeptical toward medicine (Cronbach α=.62) | 2.26 (0.84) | |
|
| |||
|
| Number of health visits, mean (SD) | The approximate number of health care visits in the last 2 years (as a patient or accompanying a friend or family member) | 4.40 (3.47) |
|
| Primary care is emergency or urgent, n (%) | Dichotomous variable indicating that the respondent uses emergency or urgent care as their primary or usual care option (as opposed to other sources such as primary care physician or a community clinic) | 477 (20.69) |
|
| No insurance, n (%) | Dichotomous variable indicating that the respondent has health insurance (as opposed to being without insurance) | 344 (14.92) |
|
| |||
|
| Rural | Respondent lives in a rural setting | 558 (24.21) |
|
| Suburban | Respondent lives in a suburban setting | 1046 (45.38) |
|
| Urban | Respondent lives in an urban setting. This is the reference category | 701 (30.41) |
|
| |||
|
| Female, n (%) | Respondent is female (the reference category is male) | 1352 (58.66) |
|
| Asian or Pacific Islander, n (%) | Respondent identifies as Asian or Pacific Islander | 158 (6.85) |
|
| Black, n (%) | Respondent identifies as Black | 511 (22.17) |
|
| Hispanic or Latino, n (%) | Respondent identifies as Hispanic or Latino | 210 (9.11) |
|
| Other race, n (%) | Respondent identifies as other race | 88 (3.82) |
|
| White, n (%) | Respondent identifies as White. This is the reference category | 1338 (58.05) |
|
| Bachelor’s degree, n (%) | Dichotomous variable indicating that the respondent has at least a bachelor’s degree (reference category is less than a bachelor’s degree) | 689 (29.89) |
|
| Income, mean (SD) | An ordinal variable, ranging from 0 to 11, entered into the model as a continuous predictor because of its underlying interval–ratio nature. The answer 4 (the average) indicates a salary of approximately US $30,000 to US $39,999 | 4.01 (3.16) |
|
| Young, n (%) | Respondent is young: aged 18-34 years | 728 (31.58) |
|
| Middle-aged, n (%) | Respondent is middle-aged: aged 35-64 years | 1223 (53.06) |
|
| Older, n (%) | Respondent is older: aged 65 to ≥85. This is the reference category | 354 (15.36) |
Ordinary least squares regression analysis of following web-based medical advice regressed on experimental conditions.
|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| Physician author | 0.184 | <.001 | 0.385 | <.001 | |
|
| Article format | 0.019 | .60 | –0.196 | .06 | |
|
| Objective writing style | 0.101 | .006 | 0.312 | .003 | |
|
| Medical skepticism | 0.099 | <.001 | 0.144 | .001 | |
|
| ||||||
|
| Skepticism × physician | —a | — | –0.089 | .04 | |
|
| Skepticism × article | — | — | 0.094 | .03 | |
|
| Skepticism × objective | — | — | –0.094 | .03 | |
|
| ||||||
|
| Number of health care visits | 0.025 | <.001 | 0.025 | <.001 | |
|
| Primary care is emergency or urgent | 0.099 | .04 | 0.094 | .047 | |
|
| No insurance (reference: any insurance) | –0.018 | .73 | –0.012 | .83 | |
|
| ||||||
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| Rural | –0.072 | .18 | –0.074 | .16 |
|
|
| Suburban | –0.009 | .84 | –0.009 | .84 |
|
| Female | 0.010 | .80 | 0.013 | .73 | |
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| Asian | –0.114 | .14 | –0.121 | .12 |
|
|
| Black | –0.042 | .40 | –0.045 | .36 |
|
|
| Hispanic | 0.015 | .83 | 0.019 | .78 |
|
|
| Other race | –0.075 | .44 | –0.079 | .42 |
|
| Bachelor’s degree or higher (reference=less than bachelor’s degree) | –0.232 | <.001 | –0.225 | <.001 | |
|
| Income | 0.007 | .28 | 0.007 | .31 | |
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| Young (18-34) | –0.244 | <.001 | –0.242 | <.001 |
|
|
| Middle-aged (35-64) | –0.121 | .03 | –0.120 | .03 |
|
| Constant | 2.678 | <.001 | 2.576 | <.001 | |
| 0.059 | N/Ab | 0.060 | N/A | |||
aNot included in base model.
bN/A: not applicable.
Figure 3Interaction between medical skepticism and authorship.
Figure 4Interaction between medical skepticism and format.
Figure 5Interaction between medical skepticism and writing style.