ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating patients' trust in health information based on different dimensions of trust.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
The rapid expansion of online platforms has changed how patients access health information, shifting the challenge from obtaining data to discerning which content is more trustworthy and personalized. While health care professionals remain the most trusted source, relying solely on them is no longer sufficient for personalized care in the digital era. This study examines how source type (interpersonal vs. web-based), transparency (presence vs. absence of evidence), and interactivity (static vs. dynamic engagement) shape patients' trust in health information. A 2 × 2 × 2 vignette-based experiment with 517 U.S. adults tested these effects. Participants reported higher trust in interpersonal and transparent sources, whereas interactivity alone showed no main effect. However, a significant three-way interaction revealed that trust peaked when interpersonal sources were transparent and interactive and was lowest when web-based systems were non-transparent and low-interactive. Interactivity partially compensated for low transparency in digital contexts. These findings underscore the need for multidimensional trust-building strategies in digital health communication. Integrating transparency and interactivity across platforms enables patients to better identify trustworthy information, thereby enhancing personalized engagement and improving health outcomes.
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.