ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Evaluating the Acceptance and Usability of an Independent, Noncommercial Search Engine for Medical Information: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study and User Behavior Tracking Analysis.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The word and the way: strategies for domain-specific BERT pre-training in German medical NLP.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Co-creation process of an app for people with rare diseases - a citizen science approach.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe internet is a key source of health information, but the quality of content from popular search engines varies, posing challenges for users-especially those with low health or digital health literacy. To address this, the "tala-med" search engine was developed in 2020 to provide access to high-quality, evidence-based content. It prioritizes German health websites based on trustworthiness, recency, user-friendliness, and comprehensibility, offering category-based filters while ensuring privacy by avoiding data collection and advertisements.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the acceptance and usability of this independent, noncommercial search engine from the users' perspectives and their actual use of the search engine.
methodsFor the questionnaire study, a cross-sectional study design was used. In total, 802 participants were recruited through a web-based panel and were asked to interact with the new search engine before completing a web-based questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression analyses were used to assess participants' acceptance and usability ratings, as well as predictors of acceptance. Furthermore, from October 2020 to June 2021, we used the open-source web analytics platform Matomo to collect behavior-tracking data from consenting users of the search engine.
resultsThe study indicated positive findings on the acceptance and usability of the search engine, with more than half of the participants willing to reuse (465/802, 58%) and recommend it (507/802, 63.2%). Of the 802 users, 747 (93.1%) valued the absence of advertising. Furthermore, 92.3% (518/561), 93.9% (553/589), 94.7% (567/599), and 96.5% (600/622) of those users who used the filters agreed at least partially that the filter functions were helpful in finding trustworthy, recent, user-friendly, or comprehensible results. Participants criticized some of the search results regarding the selection of domains and shared ideas for potential improvements (eg, for a clearer design). Regression analyses showed that the search engine was especially well accepted among older users, frequent internet users, and those with lower educational levels, indicating an effective targeting of segments of the population with lower health literacy and digital health literacy. Tracking data analysis revealed 1631 sessions, comprising 3090 searches across 1984 unique terms. Users performed 1.64 (SD 1.31) searches per visit on average. They prioritized the search terms "corona," "back pain," and "cough." Filter changes were common, especially for recency and trustworthiness, reflecting the importance that users placed on these criteria.
conclusionsUser questionnaires and behavior tracking showed the platform was well received, particularly by older and less educated users, especially for its advertisement-free design and filtering system. While feedback highlighted areas for improvement in design and filter functionality, the search engine's focus on transparency, evidence-based content, and user privacy shows promise in addressing health literacy and navigational needs. Future updates and research will further refine its effectiveness and impact on promoting access to quality health information.
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.