ArticleAmerican journal of lifestyle medicine
I Read It Online: Understanding How Undergraduate Students Assess the Accuracy of Online Sources of Health Information.
Article in American journal of lifestyle medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sources of information on monkeypox virus infection. A systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Mapping Knowledge Gaps: A Needs Assessment of Sorghum, Whole Grains Knowledge and Prediabetes Risk.Nutrients · 2026Article
- The impact of interventions against science disinformation in high school students.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- From Validation to Assessment of e-Health Literacy: A Study among Higher Education Students in Portugal.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Factors Associated with Korean American Women's Health-Related Internet Use: Findings from Andersen's Behavioral Model.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2024Article
- How do patients with high cardiovascular risk evaluate online health information? A qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Online sources of health information are a significant means by which the public educates itself about health and wellness. The purpose of this study is to investigate how undergraduate students evaluate and assess health-related websites for accuracy, as well as the self-reported factors used in identifying whether a website is an accurate source of information. One hundred and fifty-seven students participated by reviewing a series of 10 health-related websites and indicated whether they believed the website to be an accurate source of health information. Students completed an open-ended question to self-report how they made this determination. Results indicate that students were not able to accurately distinguish between credible sources of web-based health information and those sources that were previously categorized as not being credible sources. Analysis of self-reported qualitative feedback gave rise to 6 factors used to determine the accuracy of the websites reviewed. While students report using these factors, and these factors are consistent with previous research, this does not appear then to be translating to successful determination of a source's accuracy. Educating students in proper fact-checking and evaluation skills may be warranted to develop a generation of individuals who can be said to have better health literacy.
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.