Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2018
How Experts' Use of Medical Technical Jargon in Different Types of Online Health Forums Affects Perceived Information Credibility: Randomized Experiment With Laypersons.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.
- Language Use in Conversational Agent-Based Health Communication: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Rethinking Pediatric Asthma Education Through Large Language Model Generation and Simplification: Randomized Double-Blind Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Spelling Errors and Shouting Capitalization Lead to Additive Penalties to Trustworthiness of Online Health Information: Randomized Experiment With Laypersons.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Generative AI Engagement and Perceived Nutrition-Oriented Feeding Practices Among Urban Indonesian Mothers: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
- A critical analysis of online social support websites for Australians seeking bariatric surgery.Australian journal of psychology · 2026Article
- Stylistic language drives perceived moral superiority of LLMs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Black Robes and White Coats: Daubert Standard and Medical and Legal Considerations for Medical Expert Witnesses.Cureus · 2024Review
- A critical analysis of online social support for young people experiencing chronic pain.Australian journal of psychology · 2023Article
- "I FELT THE CONNECTION": A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF STANDARDIZED PATIENTS' EXPERIENCES IN A DELIVERING BAD NEWS SCENARIO.Clinical simulation in nursing · 2021Article
- A review of technologies for collaborative online information seeking: On the contribution of collaborative argumentation.Education and information technologies · 2021Article
- "You Are Not Alone"-Opportunities and Challenges for University Students' Collaborative Engagement When Dealing With Online Information About COVID-19.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Effects of Positive Language and Profession on Trustworthiness and Credibility in Online Health Advice: Experimental Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Undergraduate Medical Students' Search for Health Information Online: Explanatory Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information-A Literature Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
- Influence of Enthusiastic Language on the Credibility of Health Information and the Trustworthiness of Science Communicators: Insights From a Between-Subject Web-Based Experiment.Interactive journal of medical research · 2019Article
- When Similarity Beats Expertise-Differential Effects of Patient and Expert Ratings on Physician Choice: Field and Experimental Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2019Article
- Investigating the Role of Communication for Information Seekers' Trust-Related Evaluations of Health Videos on the Web: Content Analysis, Survey Data, and Experiment.Interactive journal of medical research · 2018Article
- Online Decision Support Tool for Personalized Cancer Symptom Checking in the Community (REACT): Acceptability, Feasibility, and Usability Study.JMIR cancer · 2018Article
- Social Media and Obesity in Adults: a Review of Recent Research and Future Directions.Current diabetes reports · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline health forums are widely used, but the quality of advice differs as much as the knowledge backgrounds of the audience members who receive the advice. It is important to understand how people judge the information given online. In line with the communication accommodation theory (CAT), online forums represent specific social contexts of communication which can present either accommodative or nonaccommodative language to an audience. Accordingly, use of accommodative or nonaccommodative language might affect people's perceived trust in the communicator.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate how experts who use accommodative (vs nonaccommodative) language are evaluated by passive users of an online forum.
methodsParticipants (n=98) took part in an online experiment and read experts' posts about 10 nutrition myths. Following a 2 x 2 mixed design, experts' posts were written using either low or high amounts of medical technical jargon (MTJ) (within factor) and were directed at different audiences (mainly other medical experts [in a professional forum] vs a user group mainly comprising laypersons [in an advisory forum]) (between factor). Accommodation occurred where experts used high amounts of MTJ to address other medical experts in the professional forum; it also occurred when experts used low amounts of MTJ to address laypersons in the advisory forum. Conversely, nonaccommodation occurred when experts used high amounts of MTJ in the advisory forum and low amounts of MTJ in the professional forum. In each condition, participants evaluated the credibility of the information, the trustworthiness of the experts, and the accommodation by the experts.
resultsOverall, participants judged the credibility of information to be higher when experts used MTJ that was accommodative to the designated audience, F
conclusionsTo provide health information online that is perceived as credible, experts should consider using similar language as the language used by the addressed audience. As it is often impossible to determine the exact makeup of an online audience, further research might investigate whether having experts explicitly declare which audience they intend to address can help people to more reliably assess an expert's trustworthiness. Furthermore, as people assess information differently depending on the context of online communication, it would be valuable for research to consider other aspects of the context beyond those of the audience.
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.