ArticleBMC medical education2025
Mechanism for credibility assessment of online health information by medical students in the digital-intelligent age-a grounded theory study in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- Impact of COVID-19 on anatomy education: a student-based survey and future perspectives.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Why do I use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to seek health information? A perceptual perspective of GenAI users.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing complexity of disease spectra and the rising public demand for health have led to a continuous expansion in the need for health information acquisition. However, the rapid development of digital and intelligent technologies has posed greater challenges to the credibility assessment of online medical and health information. The professional medical attributes of medical students necessitate their ability to discern health information in the digital-intelligent age.
objectiveTo explore the intrinsic mechanisms of health information credibility assessment among medical students in the digital-intelligent age and to provide a theoretical basis for enhancing their health information discernment capabilities.
methodsWe conducted a grounded theory study following Corbin & Strauss. Through purposive sampling, 23 medical students from diverse academic backgrounds were selected for in-depth interviews. Open coding, axial coding, and selective coding were employed to analyze the interview data, systematically constructing a theoretical model of health information credibility assessment among medical students.
results(1) Intelligent technologies in the digital-intelligent age have significantly transformed the ecology of health information dissemination, with tools such as GenAI, IAT, and Big Data increasing the difficulty of health information discernment for medical students. (2) Individual heterogeneity is a critical factor leading to variations in health information discernment among medical students, primarily manifested across three dimensions: health information acquisition, health information cognitive processing, and social connectedness. (3) In the process of health information acquisition, differences in platforms, channels, and presentation formats influence individual discernment. (4) In health information cognitive processing, factors such as information familiarity, degree of involvement, and depth of processing affect discernment. (5) Regarding social connectedness, professional identity, clinical practical experience, and medical social support shape individuals' health information discernment.
conclusionThis study reveals the potential for individuals to proactively generate information in the digital-intelligent age transforming from passive information recipients into active participants in content creation, thereby highlighting the critical importance of individual heterogeneity. A theoretical framework for individual heterogeneity is constructed: health information acquisition → cognitive processing of health information → social connectedness → credibility assessment.
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.