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
Eysenbach and Köhler [1] report the reassuring finding that their subjects were "very successful in retrieving information," yet the investigators refer to the search techniques used by their subjects as "suboptimal."
There may be a difference between what the investigators and the subjects think of as "quality." The investigators, and researchers in general, may think in terms of scientific validity. Thus, they may consider the "authority" of the source to be paramount and may be dismayed that Internet users do not search for that information. On the other hand, the subjects, and Internet users in general, may think in terms of trustworthiness in a broader sense. The authority of the source contributes to the trustworthiness of the information provided, but so do other criteria reported by Eysenbach and Köhler, such as accountability of the site owner (represented by his or her picture and e-mail address), being linked to by other sites, and absence of advertising. Researchers may want the definitive answer to a question, but typical Internet users may be satisfied with "an answer that they [feel] confident about."
Eysenbach and Köhler note that their subjects "could verify and cross check the information on different sites," but underemphasize this more democratic approach to information. The Pew Internet & American Life Project recently reported [2] that "a majority of multiple-site searchers who found similar information on different sites say the similarities gave them more confidence in the sites." And discussion on Psycho-Babble [3, 4], the peer support group that I host, has articulated this even with respect to single sites:
The search for truth reminds me of Hegel: it is neither the "thesis" (the claim by the manufacturer that the medication is some sort of wonder drug) nor the "antithesis" (the claim by someone who blames all their problems on the medication), but rather a "synthesis" (a sober analysis of both positive and negative aspects). Information which is balanced and fair is trustworthy, whereas that which comes from either advocacy viewpoint is suspect.
Eysenbach and Köhler's subjects may not have searched for information on who stood behind the sites they searched -- but they did not need to! They successfully answered questions in an average of 5 minutes 42 seconds, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
1. 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): 573-7. [Full text]
2. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2002 May 22. [Full text]
3. Hsiung RC. The best of both worlds: An online self-help group hosted by a mental health professional. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2000; 3 (6): 935-950. [Full text]
4. Hsiung, RC. Ownership: Rights and responsibilities [e-letter]. BMJ 2001 Nov 12. [Full text]
Competing interests:
No competing interests
30 May 2002
Robert C Hsiung
Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
University of Chicago, 5737 S. University Ave., Chicago, IL, 60637-1507, USA
Rapid Response:
A more democratic approach to information
Editor--
Eysenbach and Köhler [1] report the reassuring finding that their subjects were "very successful in retrieving information," yet the investigators refer to the search techniques used by their subjects as "suboptimal."
There may be a difference between what the investigators and the subjects think of as "quality." The investigators, and researchers in general, may think in terms of scientific validity. Thus, they may consider the "authority" of the source to be paramount and may be dismayed that Internet users do not search for that information. On the other hand, the subjects, and Internet users in general, may think in terms of trustworthiness in a broader sense. The authority of the source contributes to the trustworthiness of the information provided, but so do other criteria reported by Eysenbach and Köhler, such as accountability of the site owner (represented by his or her picture and e-mail address), being linked to by other sites, and absence of advertising. Researchers may want the definitive answer to a question, but typical Internet users may be satisfied with "an answer that they [feel] confident about."
Eysenbach and Köhler note that their subjects "could verify and cross check the information on different sites," but underemphasize this more democratic approach to information. The Pew Internet & American Life Project recently reported [2] that "a majority of multiple-site searchers who found similar information on different sites say the similarities gave them more confidence in the sites." And discussion on Psycho-Babble [3, 4], the peer support group that I host, has articulated this even with respect to single sites:
Eysenbach and Köhler's subjects may not have searched for information on who stood behind the sites they searched -- but they did not need to! They successfully answered questions in an average of 5 minutes 42 seconds, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Robert C Hsiung, MD
Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
University of Chicago
5737 S. University Ave.
Chicago, IL
60637-1507
USA
dr-bob@uchicago.edu
1. 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): 573-7. [Full text]
2. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2002 May 22. [Full text]
3. Hsiung RC. The best of both worlds: An online self-help group hosted by a mental health professional. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2000; 3 (6): 935-950. [Full text]
4. Hsiung, RC. Ownership: Rights and responsibilities [e-letter]. BMJ 2001 Nov 12. [Full text]
Competing interests: No competing interests