4.4 Article

Meeting the Healthy People 2020 Goals: Using the Health Information National Trends Survey to Monitor Progress on Health Communication Objectives

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION
卷 19, 期 12, 页码 1497-1509

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2014.954084

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z99 CA999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Healthy People initiative outlines a comprehensive set of goals aimed at improving the nation's health and reducing health disparities. Health communication has been included as an explicit goal since the launch of Healthy People 2010. The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) was established as a means of exploring how the changing information environment was affecting the public's health, and is therefore an ideal tool for monitoring key health communication objectives included in the Healthy People agenda. In this article, the authors apply an integrative data analysis strategy to more than 10 years of HINTS data to demonstrate how public health surveillance can be used to evaluate broad national health goals, like those set forth under the Healthy People initiative. The authors analyzed just one item from the HINTS survey regarding Internet access in order to illustrate what public health surveillance tools, like HINTS, can reveal about important indicators that are of interest to all those who work to improve the health of the public. Results show that reported Internet penetration has exceeded the Healthy People 2020 target of 75.4%. HINTS data also allowed modeling of the effects of various sociodemographic factors, which revealed persistent differences on the basis of age and education, with the oldest age groups and those with less than a college education falling short of the Healthy People 2020 target as of 2013. Furthermore, although differences by race/ethnicity were observed, the analyses suggest that race in itself accounts for very little of the variance in Internet access.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据