Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29434015›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2018

Trust in Health Information Sources: Survey Analysis of Variation by Sociodemographic and Tobacco Use Status in Oklahoma.

Cati G Brown-Johnson, Lindsay M Boeckman, Ashley H White, Andrea D Burbank, Sjonna Paulson, Laura A Beebe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Trust in COVID-19 public health information.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cati G Brown-JohnsonEvaluation Sciences Unit, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5415-3665
Lindsay M BoeckmanDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2622-9853
Ashley H WhiteDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3945-5761
Andrea D BurbankStanford Health for All Alumni, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7425-8616
Sjonna PaulsonOklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1652-1092
Laura A BeebeDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5784-9203
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · USStanford Health Care · US

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM104938 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI Janis E Campbell · 2013 to 2026
$68.2M
CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION TRAINING PROGRAMT32HL007034 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GARDNER, CHRISTOPHER D · 1985 to 2020
$8.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007034NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104938
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModern technology (ie, websites and social media) has significantly changed social mores in health information access and delivery. Although mass media campaigns for health intervention have proven effective and cost-effective in changing health behavior at a population scale, this is best studied in traditional media sources (ie, radio and television). Digital health interventions are options that use short message service/text messaging, social media, and internet technology. Although exposure to these products is becoming ubiquitous, electronic health information is novel, incompletely disseminated, and frequently inaccurate, which decreases public trust. Previous research has shown that audience trust in health care providers significantly moderates health outcomes, demographics significantly influence audience trust in electronic media, and preexisting health behaviors such as smoking status significantly moderate audience receptivity to traditional mass media. Therefore, modern health educators must assess audience trust in all sources, both media (traditional and digital) and interpersonal, to balance pros and cons before structuring multicomponent community health interventions.

objectiveWe aimed to explore current trust and moderators of trust in health information sources given recent changes in digital health information access and delivery to inform design of future health interventions in Oklahoma.

methodsWe conducted phone surveys of a cross-sectional sample of 1001 Oklahoma adults (age 18-65 years) in spring 2015 to assess trust in seven media sources: traditional (television and radio), electronic (online and social media), and interpersonal (providers, insurers, and family/friends). We also gathered information on known moderators of trust (sociodemographics and tobacco use status). We modeled log odds of a participant rating a source as "trustworthy" (SAS PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC), with subanalysis for confounders (sociodemographics and tobacco use).

resultsOklahomans showed the highest trust in interpersonal sources: 81% (808/994) reported providers were trustworthy, 55% (550/999) for friends and family, and 48% (485/998) for health insurers. For media sources, 24% of participants (232/989) rated the internet as trustworthy, followed by 21% of participants for television (225/998), 18% for radio (199/988), and only 11% for social media (110/991). Despite this low self-reported trust in social media, 40% (406/991) of participants reported using social media for tobacco-related health information. Trust in health providers did not vary by subpopulation, but sociodemographic variables (gender, income, and education) and tobacco use status significantly moderated trust in other sources. Women were on the whole more trusting than men, trust in media decreased with income, and trust in friends and family decreased with education.

conclusionsHealth education interventions should incorporate digital media, particularly when targeting low-income populations. Utilizing health care providers in social media settings could leverage high-trust and low-cost features of providers and social media, respectively.

Indexed as

electronic cigaretteshealth care providershealth communicationmass mediaOklahomaradiosocial mediatelevisiontobacco use cessationtrust

Identifiers

PMID29434015
PMCPMC5826981
OpenAlexW2785970163

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.