4.7 Article

Quantifying health literacy and eHealth literacy using existing instruments and browser-based software for tracking online health information seeking behavior

Journal

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Volume 69, Issue -, Pages 256-267

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.032

Keywords

Health literacy; eHealth literacy; Online health information seeking behavior

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Citizens are increasingly using Internet-based resources to obtain and understand health information at the point of need. The ability to locate, evaluate and use online health information may be influenced by an individual's level of health literacy and eHealth literacy. Those with advanced eHealth literacy skills may utilise more efficient online search strategies and identify higher quality health information resources. This paper describes a study which investigated the associations between health literacy, eHealth literacy and actual online health information seeking behavior. Accurately quantifying online health information seeking behavior can be difficult, which is why we integrated software into the web browser to objectively monitor online interactions, search queries and Uniform Resource Locators. We recruited 54 participants to search for information related to common health topics. We received 307 answers, of which 75.2% were correct. However, despite having adequate health and eHealth literacies, participants relied on search engine results as a guide to locating information resources. Furthermore 96.3% of participants utilised unaccredited health information to answer some questions. The findings suggest that eHealth literate individuals may not always utilise effective online searching strategies. Pearson's product-moment correlation indicated that the relationship between the health and eHealth literacy scores was not statistically significant. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available