Since searching for health information is among the most popular uses of the Internet, we analyzed a survey of 6,019 callers to the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Cancer Information Service (CIS) to assess Internet usage and interest in technologies to access health and cancer information. Findings suggest that about 40% of CIS callers used the Internet to obtain cancer information and, of these, only about 20% found all the information they sought. Nearly 33% of Internet users called the CIS to discuss information found on the Internet; most (>90%) reported that the CIS was helpful. Those who sought cancer information on the Internet were more likely to call the CIS about this information if they found all or most of the information they were seeking, compared with those who found some or little of the information. New communication services endorsed by most CIS callers included e-mails from an information specialist and telephone support from the CIS while on the Internet. The survey results indicate the importance of multiple access points, both traditional and technology based, and that there is still a need for more traditional, personalized forms of health communication. A crucial question is how best to harness and integrate these new technologies within the current generation of mediated health information systems.
"Repeated exposure, even outside the context of motivated information searching, logically may have a cumulative and substantial effect on behavioral choices (Hornik & Niederdeppe, 2008). We admit that this is not a new argument; however, most research on information exposure has focused on deliberate information seeking behavior (e.g., Bright et al., 2005; Muha, Smith, Baum, Ter Maat, & Ward, 1998; Niederdeppe, Frosch, & Hornik, 2008). Our current program of research seeks to capture and understand, more fully, the influence of scanned exposure to health content. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Research on health information exposure focuses primarily on deliberate information-seeking behavior and its effects on health. By contrast, this study explores the complementary and perhaps more influential role of health information acquired through exposure to routinely used sources, called scanning. The authors hypothesized that scanning from nonmedical sources, both mediated and interpersonal, affects cancer screening and prevention decisions. The authors used a nationally representative longitudinal survey of 2,489 adults 40 to 70 years of age to analyze the effects of scanning on 3 cancer screening behaviors (mammography, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and colonoscopy) and 3 prevention behaviors (exercising, eating fruits and vegetables, and dieting to lose weight). After adjustment for baseline behaviors and covariates, scanning at baseline predicted weekly exercise days 1 year later as well as daily fruit and vegetable servings 1 year later for those whose consumption of fruits and vegetables was already higher at baseline. Also, among those reporting timely screening mammogram behavior at baseline, scanning predicted repeat mammography. Scanning was marginally predictive of PSA uptake among those not reporting a PSA at baseline. Although there were strong cross-sectional associations, scanning did not predict dieting or colonoscopy uptake in longitudinal analyses. These analyses provide substantial support for a claim that routine exposure to health content from nonmedical sources affects specific health behaviors.
Journal of Health Communication 10/2013; 18(12). DOI:10.1080/10810730.2013.798381 · 1.61 Impact Factor
"Whereas user participation has been embraced worldwide as a means to provide better patient outcomes by policy makers and health service administrators alike, the successful implementation of formative, participatory approaches in online health information has remained under-explored. Although the growing demand for appropriate consumer health information on the Internet has been the topic of much recent medical, social science and information science literature (Pereira et al. 2001; Basch et al. 2004; Bleakley et al. 2004; Brotherton 2004; Dickerson et al. 2004; Mick 2004; Ziebland et al. 2004; Balmer 2005; Bright et al. 2005; Doney et al. 2005; Escoffery et al. 2005; Rees 2005), there has been a noticeable absence of reports that describe how to adequately design such online resources. What is more, the outcomes of online health information ventures have been extremely uneven and a growing body of literature alerts to the questionable quality of content, language, site maintenance, and accessibility provided by health information sites (Sullivan et al. 2003; Birru and Steinman 2004; Felber 2004; Fikar and Keith 2004; Friedman et al. 2004; Ilic et al. 2004; Jorgensen and Gotzsche 2004; Molassiotis and Xu 2004; Morahan-Martin 2004; Nahm et al. 2004; Weissenberger et al. 2004; Weissenberger and Schultze-Seemann 2004; Zeng and Parmanto 2004; Boulos 2005; Changrani and Gany 2005; Ekman et al. 2005; Simon and Hegedus 2005; Viswanath 2005). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Whereas user participation has been embraced worldwide as a means to provide better patient outcomes, the implementation of
formative, action research approaches in online health information has remained under-explored. The purpose of this study
is to present an action research-based methodology that allows the scoping of health information and design needs in complex,
multi-user online environments. The project's four main stages were informed by an iterative, formative approach involving
continuous expert and user evaluation. The study suggests that an action research-inspired formative approach can be successfully
employed to generate user-participation. Moreover, sustained user-participation effectively addresses most quality issues
regarding content, language, and accessibility raised in the recent literature. The paper concludes that an action research
approach geared to develop online health resources deserves more attention.
Systemic Practice and Action Research 03/2007; 20(2):151-165. DOI:10.1007/s11213-006-9057-x · 0.51 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.