Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28630033›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2017

Trust and Credibility in Web-Based Health Information: A Review and Agenda for Future Research.

Laura Sbaffi, Jennifer Rowley

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 190 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
190citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

190 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Prevalence and predictors of medical information avoidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

130 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laura SbaffiInformation School, Department of Social Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4920-893X
Jennifer RowleyInformation Interaction Research Group, Department of Languages, Information and Communication, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3437-6914

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet sources are becoming increasingly important in seeking health information, such that they may have a significant effect on health care decisions and outcomes. Hence, given the wide range of different sources of Web-based health information (WHI) from different organizations and individuals, it is important to understand how information seekers evaluate and select the sources that they use, and more specifically, how they assess their credibility and trustworthiness.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to review empirical studies on trust and credibility in the use of WHI. The article seeks to present a profile of the research conducted on trust and credibility in WHI seeking, to identify the factors that impact judgments of trustworthiness and credibility, and to explore the role of demographic factors affecting trust formation. On this basis, it aimed to identify the gaps in current knowledge and to propose an agenda for future research.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted. Searches were conducted using a variety of combinations of the terms WHI, trust, credibility, and their variants in four multi-disciplinary and four health-oriented databases. Articles selected were published in English from 2000 onwards; this process generated 3827 unique records. After the application of the exclusion criteria, 73 were analyzed fully.

resultsInterest in this topic has persisted over the last 15 years, with articles being published in medicine, social science, and computer science and originating mostly from the United States and the United Kingdom. Documents in the final dataset fell into 3 categories: (1) those using trust or credibility as a dependent variable, (2) those using trust or credibility as an independent variable, and (3) studies of the demographic factors that influence the role of trust or credibility in WHI seeking. There is a consensus that website design, clear layout, interactive features, and the authority of the owner have a positive effect on trust or credibility, whereas advertising has a negative effect. With regard to content features, authority of the author, ease of use, and content have a positive effect on trust or credibility formation. Demographic factors influencing trust formation are age, gender, and perceived health status.

conclusionsThere is considerable scope for further research. This includes increased clarity of the interaction between the variables associated with health information seeking, increased consistency on the measurement of trust and credibility, a greater focus on specific WHI sources, and enhanced understanding of the impact of demographic variables on trust and credibility judgments.

Indexed as

FemaleHealth Information ExchangeHumansInternetMaleResearchTrustUnited Stateshealth informationinformation retrievalliterature reviewtrustweb

Identifiers

PMID28630033
PMCPMC5495972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.