ArticleDigital health
Appropriate trust in online health information is associated with information platform, commercial status, and misinformation in patients with high cardiovascular risk.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Comprehensiveness, quality, and readability of non-invasive prenatal testing information on Japanese medical institution websites.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Evaluating patients' trust in health information based on different dimensions of trust.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The reliability and quality of short videos as a source of dietary guidance for cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Association between social capital, eHealth literacy, and digital health literacy among undergraduate students in China: a multigroup analysis based on gender differences.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Background: The quality of online health information (OHI) on cardiovascular health is highly variable. Trusting poor quality OHI can lead to poorer health decisions. This study examined information characteristics associated with appropriate trust in OHI among patients with high cardiovascular risk. Methods: This is a secondary analysis from a cohort study of 270 participants with high cardiovascular risk from a primary care clinic in Malaysia. Participants recorded OHI entries and their trust levels over 2 months using a digital diary. Overall, 1194 OHI entries were included and categorised by platform, commercial status, content focus, and presence of misinformation, and assessed for quality using the DISCERN tool. Appropriate trust was determined by trust-quality matching (trusting high quality or distrusting low quality OHI). The association between information characteristics and appropriate trust was analysed using multiple logistic regression. Results: Most entries were from websites (62%) and non-commercial sources (88.2%). Misinformation was found in 23.3% (278 of 1194) of entries; 30.8% (367 of 1194) were of good or excellent quality; 51.5% (615 of 1194) were appropriately trusted. Information from websites (vs social media) (AOR 4.31, 95% CI 3.14-5.91, Conclusions: OHI from websites, non-commercial sources, and information without misinformation has higher appropriate trust among patients with high cardiovascular risk. This study highlighted the need for good-quality OHI and dissemination through reliable sources.
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.