ID-5184 Wonca Abstracts supplement L-Z 13-10-23 - Flipbook - Page 32
WONCA 2023 Supplement 2: WONCA 2023 abstracts (L–Z)
L
M
N
Exploring how patients assess online health information:
A qualitative study using vignettes and think-aloud methods
O
Dr Hooi Min Lim1, Prof Chirk Jenn Ng1,2,3, Adam G Dunn4, Adina Abdullah1
1
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Department of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, 2Department of
Research, SingHealth Polyclinics, 3Duke-NUS Medical School, 4Biomedical Informatics and Digital
Health, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney
Aim
People are exposed to variable health information from the internet, potentially influencing their health
behaviour and decision making. It remains a challenge for people to discern between good- and poorquality online health information (OHI). This study explored how patients assess and trust OHI related
to their health conditions.
Methods
This qualitative study used vignettes and think-aloud methods. We recruited patients with high
cardiovascular risk in a primary care clinic. Participants were given two vignettes about statins: highquality, evidence-based information and low-quality information. Participants voiced their thoughts
when reading the vignettes, determined a trust level for each vignette using a five-point Likert scale,
and then participated in an interview. We used an interpretive description approach with thematic
analysis.
Results
In all, 20 participants were recruited, with ages ranging from 38 to 74 years. Among all the high
cardiovascular-risk participants, eight had pre-existing cardiovascular diseases. Five themes emerged
from the analysis of how patients assess OHI: (1) logical sense of content; (2) neutrality of content and
tone; (3) concordance with personal experience; (4) sources of information; and (5) consistency of
information.
Conclusions
Patients with direct involvement in the topic of OHI focused on the content in their evaluation process.
Although patients used source credibility criteria in assessing OHI, they trusted low-quality information
that used signals associated with higher-quality OHI. Seeking external validation of OHI was a key
process for patients to decide their trust in OHI. This study informed the designing of tailored strategies
to educate patients on appraising OHI.
30