ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Trust in Digital Sexual Health Information Among Chinese College Students: Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital platforms are primary sources of sexual health information for young adults, yet they are widely perceived as unreliable. This tension between distrust and reliance remains undertheorized.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine how Chinese college students use online sources for sexual health information under conditions of uncertainty and to explore how they navigate the tension between distrust and reliance.
methodsWe conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with 22 Chinese undergraduate students (aged 18-25 years) recruited from 8 universities across China using a purposive sampling strategy with maximum variation, complemented by snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted in January 2026. Telephone interviews explored participants' experiences with online sexual health information seeking, including their perceptions of reliability, encounters with contradictory content, credibility evaluation strategies, management of uncertainty, the tension between distrust and continued reliance, and the role of cultural factors in shaping information-seeking behaviors. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsParticipants reported frequent reliance on online sexual health information despite widespread concerns about its reliability. Four interconnected themes were identified: (1) a fragmented and unreliable information landscape characterized by abundant but superficial, contradictory, and difficult-to-apply content; (2) incomplete trust yet continued reliance, driven by precautionary risk logic and limited offline alternatives; (3) strategies for constructing confidence through cross-platform verification, experiential validation, and platform-specific evaluation; and (4) hidden costs of navigation, including confusion, information overload, and search abandonment.
conclusionsBased on these findings, we propose functional trust as an interpretive conceptualization describing how users act on information with sufficient confidence despite persistent uncertainty-as an interpretive lens for understanding how users navigate digital health information. Our findings suggest that the use of online sexual health information does not depend on trust in the conventional sense, but may involve the construction of functional trust under conditions of persistent uncertainty. Addressing challenges in digital sexual health communication requires not only improving information quality but also enhancing its usability and reducing the cognitive burden of navigation within structurally constrained environments.
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.