ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019
Differences in Perceptions of Health Information Between the Public and Health Care Professionals: Nonprobability Sampling Questionnaire Survey.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the messenger make the difference? Perceived reliability of health information sources during the COVID-19 pandemic in multi-ethnic Malaysia.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Digital Divide in Awareness, Want, and Adoption Across Diverse eHealth Services: Cross-Sectional Survey of Inpatients in Jinan, China.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding dengue vaccine: a baseline study of community members and health providers in Indonesia.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2025Article
- The hierarchy of needs for laboratory medicine requires a foundational care delivery model.Dialogues in health · 2024Article
- Vaccine communication strategies among healthcare workers as a reflection of the Israeli Ministry of Health's communication strategies before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Physicians' Perspective on Vaccine-Hesitancy at the Beginning of Israel's COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign and Public's Perceptions of Physicians' Knowledge When Recommending the Vaccine to Their Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- It Takes Two to Tango: How the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign in Israel Was Framed by the Health Ministry vs. the Television News.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Nationally Representative Sample of Older Internet Users: Cross-sectional Survey.JMIR aging · 2021Article
- Using WhatsApp messenger for health systems research: a scoping review of available literature.Health policy and planning · 2021Article
- Evaluating Online Consumer Medication Information Systems: Comparative Online Usability Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Analysis of Public Perception of the Israeli Government's Early Emergency Instructions Regarding COVID-19: Online Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the new media age, the public searches for information both online and offline. Many studies have examined how the public reads and understands this information but very few investigate how people assess the quality of journalistic articles as opposed to information generated by health professionals.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine how public health care workers (HCWs) and the general public seek, read, and understand health information and to investigate the criteria by which they assess the quality of journalistic articles.
methodsA Web-based nonprobability sampling questionnaire survey was distributed to Israeli HCWs and members of the public via 3 social media outlets: Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. A total of 979 respondents participated in the online survey via the Qualtrics XM platform.
resultsThe findings indicate that HCWs find academic articles more reliable than do members of the general public (44.4% and 28.4%, respectively, P<.001). Within each group, we found disparities between the places where people search for information and the sources they consider reliable. HCWs consider academic articles to be the most reliable, yet these are not their main information sources. In addition, HCWs often use social networks to search for information (18.2%, P<.001), despite considering them very unreliable (only 2.2% found them reliable, P<.001). The same paradoxes were found among the general public, where 37.5% (P<.001) seek information via social networks yet only 8.4% (P<.001) find them reliable. Out of 6 quality criteria, 4 were important both to HCWs and to the general public.
conclusionsIn the new media age where information is accessible to all, the quality of articles about health is of critical importance. It is important that the criteria examined in this research become the norm in health writing for all stakeholders who write about health, whether they are professional journalists or citizen journalists writing in the new media.
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.