Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38786449›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Developing a Tool for Assessing the Process of Seeking Health Information: Online Think-Aloud Method.

Asim Alhejaili, Heather Wharrad, Richard Windle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Asim AlhejailiSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2HA, UK.
Heather WharradSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2HA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6030-5648
Richard WindleSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2HA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nursing students can access massive amounts of online health data to drive cutting-edge evidence-based practice in clinical placement, to bridge the theory-practice gap. This activity requires investigation to identify the strategies nursing students apply to evaluate online health information. Online Think-Aloud sessions enabled 14 participants to express their cognitive processes in navigating various educational resources, including online journals and databases, and determining the reliability of sources, indicating their strategies for information-seeking, which helped to create this scoring system. Easy access and user convenience were clearly the instrumental factors in this behavior, which has troubling implications for the lack of use of higher-quality resources (e.g., from peer-reviewed academic journals). The identified challenges encountered during resource access included limited skills in the critical evaluation of information credibility and reliability, signaling a requirement for improved information literacy skills. Participants acknowledged the importance of evidence-based, high-quality information, but faced numerous barriers, such as restricted access to professional and specialty databases, and a lack of academic skills training. This paper develops and critiques a Performative Tool for assessing the process of seeking health information using an online Think-Aloud method, and explores factors and strategies contributing to evidence-based health information access and utilization in clinical practice, aiming to provide insight into individuals' information-seeking behaviors in online health contexts.

Indexed as

clinical practicenursing studentsperformance toolseeking health information

Identifiers

PMID38786449
PMCPMC11120655

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.