• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
How online crowds influence the way individual consumers answer health questions: an online prospective study.在线众包如何影响个体消费者回答健康问题的方式:一项在线前瞻性研究。
Appl Clin Inform. 2011 Jun 1;2(2):177-89. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2011-01-RA-0006. Print 2011.
2
The influence of crowds on consumer health decisions: an online prospective study.群体对消费者健康决策的影响:一项在线前瞻性研究。
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):33-7.
3
Impact of web searching and social feedback on consumer decision making: a prospective online experiment.网络搜索和社交反馈对消费者决策的影响:一项前瞻性在线实验
J Med Internet Res. 2008 Jan 22;10(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.963.
4
Do people experience cognitive biases while searching for information?人们在搜索信息时会经历认知偏差吗?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Sep-Oct;14(5):599-608. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2411. Epub 2007 Jun 28.
5
Can cognitive biases during consumer health information searches be reduced to improve decision making?消费者健康信息搜索过程中的认知偏差能否减少以改善决策?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):54-65. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2557. Epub 2008 Oct 24.
6
Clinical decision velocity is increased when meta-search filters enhance an evidence retrieval system.当元搜索过滤器增强证据检索系统时,临床决策速度会提高。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Sep-Oct;15(5):638-46. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2765. Epub 2008 Jun 25.
7
Integration of Social Information by Human Groups.人类群体对社会信息的整合。
Top Cogn Sci. 2015 Jul;7(3):469-93. doi: 10.1111/tops.12150. Epub 2015 Jul 17.
8
Consumer health information and question answering: helping consumers find answers to their health-related information needs.消费者健康信息与问答:帮助消费者寻找与其健康相关的信息需求的答案。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Feb 1;27(2):194-201. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocz152.
9
Answers to Health Questions: Internet Search Results Versus Online Health Community Responses.健康问题的答案:互联网搜索结果与在线健康社区的回复
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Apr 28;18(4):e95. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5369.
10
Evidence-based medicine Training: Kazakhstan experience.循证医学培训:哈萨克斯坦的经验。
Int J Risk Saf Med. 2015;27 Suppl 1:S95-6. doi: 10.3233/JRS-150705.

引用本文的文献

1
E-Cigarette-Related Health Beliefs Expressed on Twitter Within the U.S.美国推特上表达的与电子烟相关的健康观念
AJPM Focus. 2023 Jan 18;2(2):100067. doi: 10.1016/j.focus.2023.100067. eCollection 2023 Jun.
2
Tweet content related to sexually transmitted diseases: no joking matter.与性传播疾病相关的推文内容:可不是闹着玩的。
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Oct 6;16(10):e228. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3259.
3
Identifying Measures Used for Assessing Quality of YouTube Videos with Patient Health Information: A Review of Current Literature.识别用于评估包含患者健康信息的YouTube视频质量的指标:当前文献综述
Interact J Med Res. 2013 Feb 28;2(1):e6. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.2465.

本文引用的文献

1
Infodemiology and infoveillance: framework for an emerging set of public health informatics methods to analyze search, communication and publication behavior on the Internet.信息流行病学与信息监测:一套新兴的公共卫生信息学方法的框架,用于分析互联网上的搜索、交流和出版行为。
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Mar 27;11(1):e11. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1157.
2
Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study.幸福在大型社交网络中的动态传播:弗雷明汉心脏研究20年纵向分析
BMJ. 2008 Dec 4;337:a2338. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2338.
3
Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data.利用搜索引擎查询数据检测流感疫情。
Nature. 2009 Feb 19;457(7232):1012-4. doi: 10.1038/nature07634.
4
How the Social Web Supports patient experimentation with a new therapy: The demand for patient-controlled and patient-centered informatics.社交网络如何支持患者对新疗法进行试验:对患者控制和以患者为中心的信息学的需求。
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008 Nov 6;2008:217-21.
5
Can cognitive biases during consumer health information searches be reduced to improve decision making?消费者健康信息搜索过程中的认知偏差能否减少以改善决策?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):54-65. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2557. Epub 2008 Oct 24.
6
Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness.医学2.0:社交网络、协作、参与、辅助调解及开放性。
J Med Internet Res. 2008 Aug 25;10(3):e22. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1030.
7
Impact of web searching and social feedback on consumer decision making: a prospective online experiment.网络搜索和社交反馈对消费者决策的影响:一项前瞻性在线实验
J Med Internet Res. 2008 Jan 22;10(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.963.
8
Do people experience cognitive biases while searching for information?人们在搜索信息时会经历认知偏差吗?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Sep-Oct;14(5):599-608. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2411. Epub 2007 Jun 28.
9
Seeking help from a mental health professional: the influence of one's social network.向心理健康专业人士寻求帮助:个人社交网络的影响。
J Clin Psychol. 2007 Mar;63(3):233-45. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20345.
10
"It wasn't me, it was them!" social influence in risky behavior by adolescents.“不是我,是他们!”青少年危险行为中的社会影响。
J Health Econ. 2007 Jul 1;26(4):763-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.11.005. Epub 2006 Dec 26.

在线众包如何影响个体消费者回答健康问题的方式:一项在线前瞻性研究。

How online crowds influence the way individual consumers answer health questions: an online prospective study.

机构信息

Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales , Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

Appl Clin Inform. 2011 Jun 1;2(2):177-89. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2011-01-RA-0006. Print 2011.

DOI:10.4338/ACI-2011-01-RA-0006
PMID:23616869
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3631918/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether strength of social feedback, i.e. other people who concur (or do not concur) with one's own answer to a question, influences the way one answers health questions.

METHODS

Online prospective study. Two hundred and twenty-seven undergraduate students were recruited to use an online search engine to answer six health questions. Subjects recorded their pre- and post-search answers to each question and their level of confidence in these answers. After answering each question post-search, subjects were presented with a summary of post-search answers provided by previous subjects and were asked to answer the question again.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant relationship between the absolute number of others with a different answer (the crowd's opinion volume) and the likelihood of an individual changing an answer (P<0.001). For most questions, no subjects changed their answer until the first 10-35 subjects completed the study. Subjects' likelihood of changing answer increased as the percentage of others with a different answer (the crowd's opinion density) increased (P=0.047). Overall, 98.3% of subjects did not change their answer when it concurred with the majority (i.e. >50%) of subjects, and that 25.7% of subjects changed their answer to the majority response when it did not concur with the majority. When subjects had a post-search answer that did not concur with the majority, they were 24% more likely to change answer than those with answers that concurred (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study provides empirical evidence that crowd influence, in the form of online social feedback, affects the way consumers answer health questions.

摘要

目的

研究他人对问题回答的认同(或不认同)程度,即社会反馈的强度,是否会影响人们回答健康问题的方式。

方法

这是一项在线前瞻性研究。共招募了 227 名本科生,他们使用在线搜索引擎回答 6 个健康问题。受试者记录了他们在搜索前和搜索后的每个问题的答案以及对这些答案的信心程度。在搜索后回答每个问题后,向受试者展示之前其他受试者提供的搜索后答案摘要,并要求他们再次回答问题。

结果

个体改变答案的可能性与他人不同答案的绝对数量(人群意见的音量)之间存在统计学显著关系(P<0.001)。对于大多数问题,直到前 10-35 名受试者完成研究后,才有受试者改变他们的答案。随着不同意见的人群比例(人群意见密度)的增加,受试者改变答案的可能性也随之增加(P=0.047)。总体而言,当答案与大多数人(即>50%)一致时,98.3%的受试者不会改变答案,而当答案与大多数人不一致时,有 25.7%的受试者会改变答案以从众。当受试者的搜索后答案与大多数人不一致时,他们改变答案的可能性比那些答案与大多数人一致的人高 24%(P<0.001)。

结论

本研究提供了实证证据,表明以在线社交反馈形式的群体影响会影响消费者回答健康问题的方式。