ArticleJournal of health communication2013
Iterative evaluation of a web-based health information resource.
Article in Journal of health communication, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Organizational Health Literacy as a Tool for Health Equity: Application in a High-Risk Infant Follow-Up Program.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Performing an Organizational Health Literacy Assessment in a Shelter Serving People with Mental Illness.Health literacy research and practice · 2022Article
- Trustworthiness, Readability, and Suitability of Web-Based Information for Stroke Prevention and Self-Management for Korean Americans: Critical Evaluation.Interactive journal of medical research · 2018Article
- How do we actually put smarter snacks in schools? NOURISH (Nutrition Opportunities to Understand Reforms Involving Student Health) conversations with food-service directors.Public health nutrition · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article presents the research process and methods used to evaluate and improve a web-based health information resource, called "Community Connect to Research," intended for the public. The research process was iterative and involved collaboration with many partners. Two formal evaluations were conducted in 2009 and 2010 using key informant interviews, usability interviews, focus groups, an online survey, and readability and suitability assessment tools. These methods provided users' perspectives on the overall design, content, and literacy demands of the website as well as valuable feedback on their interaction with the website. The authors subsequently redesigned Community Connect to Research, making significant improvements on the basis of what they learned from the evaluation. The second evaluation revealed that the redesign addressed many issues found in the first evaluation and identified additional areas of possible improvement. Overall, both evaluations suggested that participants believed that the website was useful and valuable, indicating that Community Connect to Research is a health information resource that provides patients and families with accessible, relevant, and high-quality information. Regular formal evaluation is an essential tool for effective ongoing enhancement of health information resources meant for the public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.