Trust in Health Websites: A Review of an Emerging Field
1
hnology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Trust in Health Websites: A Review of an Emerging Field Laurian Vega, Enid Montague, Tom Dehart Virginia Tech & University of Michigan Viewing health records Interacting with others about health Communicate with non- providers about health Search for health information Communicate with providers online View health information Collate personal health information Content Analysis of Word Frequency 2% 2% 4% 6% 6% 4% 4% 19% 21% 30% Medicine (14 papers) Health Informatics (11 papers) Computing (9 papers) Communication (3 papers) Health Services & Healthcare (3 papers) Info. & Library Science (3 papers) Social Sciences (3 papers) Decision Making (2 papers) Media & Society (1 paper) Pharmacology (1 paper) 3% 5% 8% 8% 5% 5% 16% 26% 24% Quality Behavior 0 12 24 35 47 Quality Understanding Reliability Communication Experience Knowledge Accuracy Credibility Concern Behavior Top ten most frequently used words Frequent words then graphed by area of research Abstract As people increasingly turn to health websites for the purposes of self-diagnosis and healthier living, we have an obligation to evaluate the factors that might affect a given user's assessment and their willingness to use such sites. Constructs such as quality, trust, and credibility need to be defined within this space in order for us to truly understand how and why people use health websites. In an effort to better understand these constructs we conducted a comprehensive analysis of all peer-reviewed empirical studies on trust in health websites -- this paper is the result. Work on this topic was provided from eleven fields including HCI, Informatics, Medicine, and Decision Making. Our findings show that authors often value different facets of trust, report different outcomes, and rarely cite each other. Without a coherence of terms and values, the task of presenting and understanding how users trust health information on the web will be intractable. Social Network Analysis This network is a representation of the social network analysis of all empirical papers on trust in health websites. Boxes represent papers and edges represent citations. Location from top to bottom indicate position in network. Colors are used in this figure to clarify different cliques (e.g., Bates, Menon, and Dutta- Bergman form a clique as these three papers cite each other). Analysis of Outcome by Area Usability Content of the Webpage Informational Factors Contextual Factors Demographics Medicine Health Informatics Computing Communication Health Services & Healthcare Information & Library Science Social Sciences Decision Making Media & Society Pharmacology 0 0 13% 33% 20% 18% 45% 45% 18% 36% 77% 66% 66% 18% 36% 33% 0 0 0 33% 0 0 33% 33% 33% 33% 66% 66% 66% 33% 33% 33% 33% 0 33% 50% 100% 100% 100% 0 0 100% 0 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0
-
Upload
laurian-vega -
Category
Documents
-
view
56 -
download
5
description
As people increasingly turn to health websites for the purposes of self-diagnosis and healthier living, we have an obligation to evaluate the factors that might affect a given user's assessment and their willingness to use such sites. Constructs such as quality, trust, and credibility need to be defined within this space in order for us to truly understand how and why people use health websites. In an effort to better understand these constructs we conducted a comprehensive analysis of all peer-reviewed empirical studies on trust in health websites -- this paper is the result. Work on this topic was provided from eleven fields including HCI, Informatics, Medicine, and Decision Making. Our findings show that authors often value different facets of trust, report different outcomes, and rarely cite each other. Without a coherence of terms and values, the task of presenting and understanding how users trust health information on the web will be intractable.
Transcript of Trust in Health Websites: A Review of an Emerging Field
Technology Technology Technology
Technology
Technology
Technology
Trust in Health Websites: A Review of an Emerging Field
Laurian Vega, Enid Montague, Tom DehartVirginia Tech & University of Michigan
Viewing health records
Interacting with others
about health
Communicate with non-
providers about health
Search for health
information
Communicate with providers
online
View health information
Collate personal
health information
Content Analysis of Word Frequency
2%2%4%
6%
6%4%
4%19%
21%
30%
Medicine (14 papers)Health Informatics (11 papers)Computing (9 papers)Communication (3 papers)Health Services & Healthcare (3 papers)Info. & Library Science (3 papers)Social Sciences (3 papers)Decision Making (2 papers)Media & Society (1 paper)Pharmacology (1 paper)3%
5%
8%
8%5%
5%16%
26%
24%Qual
ity
Beh
avio
r
0
12
24
35
47
Quality Understanding Reliability Communication Experience Knowledge Accuracy Credibility Concern Behavior
Top ten most frequently used words
Frequent words then graphed by area of research
AbstractAs people increasingly turn to health websites for the purposes of self-diagnosis and healthier living, we have an obligation to evaluate the factors that might affect a given user's assessment and their willingness to use such sites. Constructs such as quality, trust, and credibility need to be defined within this space in order for us to truly understand how and why people use health websites. In an effort to better understand these constructs we conducted a comprehensive analysis of all peer-reviewed empirical studies on trust in health websites -- this paper is the result. Work on this topic was provided from eleven fields including HCI, Informatics, Medicine, and Decision Making. Our findings show that authors often value different facets of trust, report different outcomes, and rarely cite each other. Without a coherence of terms and values, the task of presenting and understanding how users trust health information on the web will be intractable.
Social Network AnalysisThis network is a representation of the social network analysis of all empirical papers on trust in health websites. Boxes represent papers and edges represent citations. Location from top to bottom indicate position in network. Colors are used in this figure to clarify different cliques (e.g., Bates, Menon, and Dutta-Bergman form a clique as these three papers cite each other).
Analysis of Outcome by AreaUsability Content of the
WebpageInformational
FactorsContextual
FactorsDemographics
Medicine
Health Informatics
Computing
Communication
Health Services & Healthcare
Information & Library Science
Social Sciences
Decision Making
Media & Society
Pharmacology
0 0 13% 33% 20%
18% 45% 45% 18% 36%
77% 66% 66% 18% 36%
33% 0 0 0 33%
0 0 33% 33% 33%
33% 66% 66% 66% 33%
33% 33% 33% 0 33%
50% 100% 100% 100% 0
0 100% 0 100% 0
0 0 0 0 0
