ArticleBMC primary care2023
How do patients with high cardiovascular risk evaluate online health information? A qualitative study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating patients' trust in health information based on different dimensions of trust.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Identifying and profiling authoritative cardiology-related key opinion leaders on Xiaohongshu: a social media-based study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Understanding how users identify health misinformation in short videos: an integrated analysis using PLS-SEM and fsQCA.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople are exposed to variable health information from the Internet, potentially influencing their health decision-making and behaviour. It remains a challenge for people to discern between good- and poor-quality online health information (OHI). This study explored how patients evaluate and determine trust in statin-related OHI in patients with high cardiovascular risk.
methodsThis qualitative study used vignettes and think-aloud methods. We recruited patients from a primary care clinic who were at least 18 years old, had high cardiovascular risk and had previously sought OHI. Participants were given two statin-related vignettes: Vignette 1 (low-quality information) and Vignette 2 (high-quality information). Participants voiced their thoughts aloud when reading the vignettes and determined the trust level for each vignette using a 5-point Likert scale. This was followed by a semi-structured interview which was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were coded and analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsA total of 20 participants were recruited, with age ranging from 38-74 years. Among all the high cardiovascular-risk participants, eight had pre-existing cardiovascular diseases. For Vignette 1 (low-quality information), five participants trusted it while nine participants were unsure of their trust. 17 participants (85%) trusted Vignette 2 (high-quality information). Five themes emerged from the analysis of how patients evaluated OHI: (1) logical content, (2) neutral stance and tone of OHI content, (3) credibility of the information source, (4) consistent with prior knowledge and experience, and (5) corroboration with information from other sources.
conclusionPatients with high cardiovascular risks focused on the content, source credibility and information consistency when evaluating and determining their trust in statin-related OHI. Doctors should adopt a more personalised approach when discussing statin-related online misinformation with patients by considering their prior knowledge, beliefs and experience of statin use.
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.