Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2025
A Multimodal Analysis of Online Information Foraging in Health-Related Topics Based on Stimulus-Engagement Alignment: Observational Feasibility Study.
Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The recent increase in online health information-seeking has prompted extensive user appraisal of encountered content. Information consumption depends crucially on the quality of encountered information and the user's ability to evaluate it; yet, within the context of web-based, organic search behavior, few studies take into account both these aspects simultaneously. Objective: We aimed to explore a method to bridge these two aspects and grant even consideration to both the stimulus (web page content) and the user (ability to appraise encountered content). We examined novices and experts in information retrieval and appraisal to demonstrate a novel approach to studying information foraging theory: stimulus-engagement alignment (SEA). Methods: We sampled from experts and novices in information retrieval and assessment, asking participants to conduct a 10-minute search task with a specific information goal. We used an observational and a retrospective think-aloud protocol to collect data within the framework of an interview. Data from 3 streams (think-aloud, human-computer interaction, and screen content) were manually coded in the Reproducible Open Coding Kit standard and subsequently aligned and represented in a tabularized format with the R package {rock}. SEA scores were derived from designated code co-occurrences in specific segments of data within the stimulus data stream versus the think-aloud and human-computer interaction data streams. Results: SEA scores represented a meaningful comparison of what participants encountered and what they engaged with. Operationalizing codes as either "present" or "absent" in a particular data stream allowed us to inspect not only which credibility cues participants engaged with with the most frequency, but also whether participants noticed the absence of cues. Code co-occurrence frequencies could thus indicate case-, time-, and context-sensitive information appraisal that also takes into account the quality of information encountered. Conclusions: Using SEA allowed us to retain epistemic access to idiosyncratic manifestations of both stimuli and engagement. In addition, by using the same coding scheme and designated co-occurrences across participants, we were able to pinpoint trends within our sample and subsamples. We believe our approach offers a powerful analysis encompassing the breadth and depth of data, both on par with each other in the feat of understanding organic, web-based search behavior.
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.