Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29233802›Full record

ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2017

How, When and Why People Seek Health Information Online: Qualitative Study in Hong Kong.

Joanna Tw Chu, Man Ping Wang, Chen Shen, Kasisomayajula Viswanath, Tai Hing Lam, Sophia Siu Chee Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Assessing Readability of Skin Cancer Screening Resources: A Comparison of Online Websites and ChatGPT Responses.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 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

6 authors.

Joanna Tw ChuNational Institute for Health Innovation, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5900-8141
Man Ping WangSchool of Nursing, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4000-2388
Chen ShenSchool of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0119-4455
Kasisomayajula ViswanathCenter for Community-Based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4795-5803
Tai Hing LamSchool of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2033-9971
Sophia Siu Chee ChanSchool of Nursing, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6349-3717

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Internet has become an established source for health information. The number of individuals using the Internet to search for health information, ranging from healthy lifestyle advice to treatment and diseases, continues to grow. Scholars have emphasized the need to give greater voice and influence to health consumers. Hong Kong, being one of the most technologically advanced and connected cities in the world, has one of the highest Internet penetration rates in the world. Given the dearth of research in an Asian context, Hong Kong is an excellent platform to study individuals' perceptions (eg, benefits and limitations on seeking health information online and how the information is used) on health information seeking.

objectiveThe aim of this paper was to study individuals' perceptions on health information seeking and to document their Internet information-seeking behaviors.

methodsFive focus groups (n=49) were conducted from November 2015 to January 2016 with individuals across different age groups (18 years or above). Focus group contents were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis techniques.

resultsOlder (55+ years) and less educated respondents were less likely to use the Internet to search for health information. Among individuals who obtained health information via the Internet, regardless of the severity of the health issue, the Internet was always the first source for information. Limited doctor consultation time and barriers to accessing professional health services were the main reasons for using the Internet. Convenience and coverage were regarded as the main advantages, whereas credibility and trustworthiness of health information were noted as limitations. The use of Web-based health information varied among individuals; hence, the implications on the doctor-patient relationship were mixed.

conclusionsThe prevalent and increasing use of the Internet for health information seeking suggests the need for health care professionals to understand how it can be optimally utilized to improve health outcomes. Strategies for communicating and disseminating credible health information in a form that users can understand and use are essential. Due to the rapid technological and related behavioral changes, online health information seeking and its effects need to be closely monitored.

Indexed as

consumer health informationfocus groupsinformation seeking behaviorInternet

Identifiers

PMID29233802
PMCPMC5743920

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.