• 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

基于网络的健康信息中的信任与可信度:综述及未来研究议程

Trust and Credibility in Web-Based Health Information: A Review and Agenda for Future Research.

作者信息

Sbaffi Laura, Rowley Jennifer

机构信息

Information School, Department of Social Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Information Interaction Research Group, Department of Languages, Information and Communication, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 19;19(6):e218. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7579.

DOI:10.2196/jmir.7579
PMID:28630033
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5495972/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Internet sources are becoming increasingly important in seeking health information, such that they may have a significant effect on health care decisions and outcomes. Hence, given the wide range of different sources of Web-based health information (WHI) from different organizations and individuals, it is important to understand how information seekers evaluate and select the sources that they use, and more specifically, how they assess their credibility and trustworthiness.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review empirical studies on trust and credibility in the use of WHI. The article seeks to present a profile of the research conducted on trust and credibility in WHI seeking, to identify the factors that impact judgments of trustworthiness and credibility, and to explore the role of demographic factors affecting trust formation. On this basis, it aimed to identify the gaps in current knowledge and to propose an agenda for future research.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted. Searches were conducted using a variety of combinations of the terms WHI, trust, credibility, and their variants in four multi-disciplinary and four health-oriented databases. Articles selected were published in English from 2000 onwards; this process generated 3827 unique records. After the application of the exclusion criteria, 73 were analyzed fully.

RESULTS

Interest in this topic has persisted over the last 15 years, with articles being published in medicine, social science, and computer science and originating mostly from the United States and the United Kingdom. Documents in the final dataset fell into 3 categories: (1) those using trust or credibility as a dependent variable, (2) those using trust or credibility as an independent variable, and (3) studies of the demographic factors that influence the role of trust or credibility in WHI seeking. There is a consensus that website design, clear layout, interactive features, and the authority of the owner have a positive effect on trust or credibility, whereas advertising has a negative effect. With regard to content features, authority of the author, ease of use, and content have a positive effect on trust or credibility formation. Demographic factors influencing trust formation are age, gender, and perceived health status.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable scope for further research. This includes increased clarity of the interaction between the variables associated with health information seeking, increased consistency on the measurement of trust and credibility, a greater focus on specific WHI sources, and enhanced understanding of the impact of demographic variables on trust and credibility judgments.

摘要

背景

互联网资源在获取健康信息方面正变得越来越重要,以至于它们可能对医疗保健决策和结果产生重大影响。因此,鉴于来自不同组织和个人的基于网络的健康信息(WHI)来源广泛,了解信息寻求者如何评估和选择他们使用的来源,更具体地说,他们如何评估这些来源的可信度和可靠性,是很重要的。

目的

本研究的目的是回顾关于在使用WHI时信任和可信度的实证研究。本文旨在呈现关于在寻求WHI时信任和可信度的研究概况,确定影响可信度和可靠性判断的因素,并探讨影响信任形成的人口统计学因素的作用。在此基础上,旨在找出当前知识中的差距,并提出未来研究的议程。

方法

进行了系统的文献综述。在四个多学科和四个健康导向的数据库中,使用WHI、信任、可信度及其变体的各种组合进行搜索。所选文章为2000年以后发表的英文文章;这一过程产生了3827条独特记录。应用排除标准后,对73篇文章进行了全面分析。

结果

在过去15年中,对该主题的兴趣一直存在,文章发表在医学、社会科学和计算机科学领域,大多来自美国和英国。最终数据集中的文献分为三类:(1)将信任或可信度用作因变量的文献,(2)将信任或可信度用作自变量的文献,(3)对影响信任或可信度在寻求WHI中作用的人口统计学因素的研究。人们一致认为,网站设计、清晰的布局、交互功能以及所有者的权威性对信任或可信度有积极影响,而广告则有负面影响。关于内容特征,作者的权威性、易用性和内容对信任或可信度的形成有积极影响。影响信任形成的人口统计学因素是年龄、性别和感知健康状况。

结论

仍有相当大的进一步研究空间。这包括提高与健康信息寻求相关变量之间相互作用的清晰度,提高信任和可信度测量的一致性,更加关注特定的WHI来源,以及增强对人口统计学变量对信任和可信度判断影响的理解。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a58e/5495972/d708de97c679/jmir_v19i6e218_fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a58e/5495972/061ef6eb5331/jmir_v19i6e218_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a58e/5495972/bf06e08f046c/jmir_v19i6e218_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a58e/5495972/82ad694b47d8/jmir_v19i6e218_fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a58e/5495972/d708de97c679/jmir_v19i6e218_fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a58e/5495972/061ef6eb5331/jmir_v19i6e218_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a58e/5495972/bf06e08f046c/jmir_v19i6e218_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a58e/5495972/82ad694b47d8/jmir_v19i6e218_fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a58e/5495972/d708de97c679/jmir_v19i6e218_fig4.jpg

相似文献

1
Trust and Credibility in Web-Based Health Information: A Review and Agenda for Future Research.基于网络的健康信息中的信任与可信度:综述及未来研究议程
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 19;19(6):e218. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7579.
2
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
3
Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.在基层医疗机构或医院门诊环境中,如果患者出现以下症状和体征,可判断其是否患有 COVID-19。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 20;5(5):CD013665. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3.
4
Survivor, family and professional experiences of psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence: a qualitative evidence synthesis.性虐待和暴力的心理社会干预的幸存者、家庭和专业人员的经验:定性证据综合。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Oct 4;10(10):CD013648. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013648.pub2.
5
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.利用预后信息为乳腺癌患者选择辅助性全身治疗的成本效益
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340.
6
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
7
The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events.手术不良事件的测量与监测
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(22):1-194. doi: 10.3310/hta5220.
8
The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 11.档案袋对本科学生学习的教育效果:最佳证据医学教育(BEME)系统评价。BEME指南第11号。
Med Teach. 2009 Apr;31(4):282-98. doi: 10.1080/01421590902889897.
9
Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.父母及非正式照料者关于儿童常规疫苗接种沟通的观点与经历:定性证据综述
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 7;2(2):CD011787. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011787.pub2.
10
How lived experiences of illness trajectories, burdens of treatment, and social inequalities shape service user and caregiver participation in health and social care: a theory-informed qualitative evidence synthesis.疾病轨迹的生活经历、治疗负担和社会不平等如何影响服务使用者和照顾者参与健康和社会护理:一项基于理论的定性证据综合分析
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Jun;13(24):1-120. doi: 10.3310/HGTQ8159.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessment of Availability of Antibiotics for Online Sale and Comparison of E-pharmacies in India.印度在线销售抗生素的可得性评估及电子药房比较
Cureus. 2025 Aug 7;17(8):e89577. doi: 10.7759/cureus.89577. eCollection 2025 Aug.
2
Prevalence and predictors of medical information avoidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.医疗信息回避的患病率及预测因素:一项系统综述与荟萃分析。
Ann Behav Med. 2025 Jan 4;59(1). doi: 10.1093/abm/kaaf058.
3
An Evaluation of Online Resources for Paediatric Tube Feeding in Aotearoa New Zealand: A Document Analysis.

本文引用的文献

1
Where people look for online health information.人们在哪里寻找在线健康信息。
Health Info Libr J. 2017 Jun;34(2):146-155. doi: 10.1111/hir.12143. Epub 2016 May 21.
2
Exploring the role of health literacy in the evaluation of online health information: Insights from a mixed-methods study.探索健康素养在在线健康信息评估中的作用:一项混合方法研究的见解。
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jun;99(6):1017-25. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.007. Epub 2016 Jan 19.
3
What predicts the trust of online health information?什么因素能预测对在线健康信息的信任?
新西兰奥塔哥地区儿科管饲在线资源评估:文献分析
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2025 Aug;38(4):e70107. doi: 10.1111/jhn.70107.
4
Extending Signaling Theory in Online Health Communities to Address Medical Information Asymmetry: Systematic Review With Narrative Synthesis.扩展在线健康社区中的信号理论以解决医学信息不对称:叙事综合的系统评价
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Aug 1;27:e73208. doi: 10.2196/73208.
5
Factors that influence trust and willingness to use generative AI for health information: A cross-sectional study.影响对生成式人工智能用于健康信息的信任度和使用意愿的因素:一项横断面研究。
Digit Health. 2025 Jul 28;11:20552076251360973. doi: 10.1177/20552076251360973. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
6
Factors Associated With the Level of Trust in Health Information Robots Among the General Population From a Socioecological Model Perspective: Network Analysis.从社会生态模型视角看普通人群中与健康信息机器人信任水平相关的因素:网络分析
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Jun 13;27:e68299. doi: 10.2196/68299.
7
Understanding fake news during the Covid-19 health crisis from the perspective of information behaviour: The case of Spain.从信息行为视角理解新冠疫情健康危机期间的虚假新闻:以西班牙为例。
J Librariansh Inf Sci. 2020 Sep 1:0961000620949653. doi: 10.1177/0961000620949653.
8
An evaluation of menstrual health apps' functionality, inclusiveness, and health education information.对月经健康应用程序的功能、包容性和健康教育信息的评估。
BMC Womens Health. 2025 May 28;25(1):261. doi: 10.1186/s12905-025-03812-1.
9
Exploring Values Clarification and Health-Literate Design in Patient Decision Aids: A Qualitative Interview Study.探索患者决策辅助工具中的价值观澄清与健康素养设计:一项定性访谈研究
Med Decis Making. 2025 Jul;45(5):510-521. doi: 10.1177/0272989X251334356. Epub 2025 May 14.
10
Consumer-oriented review of digital diabetes prevention programs: insights from the CDC's diabetes prevention recognition program.以消费者为导向的数字糖尿病预防项目综述:来自美国疾病控制与预防中心糖尿病预防认可项目的见解
Front Clin Diabetes Healthc. 2025 Apr 16;6:1562108. doi: 10.3389/fcdhc.2025.1562108. eCollection 2025.
Epidemiol Health. 2015 Jun 28;37:e2015030. doi: 10.4178/epih/e2015030. eCollection 2015.
4
Low health literacy and evaluation of online health information: a systematic review of the literature.低健康素养与在线健康信息评估:文献系统综述
J Med Internet Res. 2015 May 7;17(5):e112. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4018.
5
Medical information on the internet: a tool for measuring consumer perception of quality aspects.互联网上的医学信息:一种衡量消费者对质量方面认知的工具。
Interact J Med Res. 2015 Mar 30;4(1):e8. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.3144.
6
Health care information seeking and seniors: determinants of Internet use.医疗保健信息寻求与老年人:互联网使用的决定因素
Health Mark Q. 2015;32(1):96-112. doi: 10.1080/07359683.2015.1000758.
7
Patient perspectives on online health information and communication with doctors: a qualitative study of patients 50 years old and over.50岁及以上患者对在线健康信息及与医生沟通的看法:一项定性研究
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jan 13;17(1):e19. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3588.
8
Health information-seeking behavior of seniors who use the Internet: a survey.使用互联网的老年人的健康信息寻求行为:一项调查。
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jan 8;17(1):e10. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3749.
9
Trust in health information websites: A systematic literature review on the antecedents of trust.对健康信息网站的信任:关于信任前提因素的系统文献综述
Health Informatics J. 2016 Jun;22(2):355-69. doi: 10.1177/1460458214559432. Epub 2014 Dec 16.
10
Students' trust judgements in online health information seeking.学生在在线健康信息搜索中的信任判断。
Health Informatics J. 2015 Dec;21(4):316-27. doi: 10.1177/1460458214546772. Epub 2014 Sep 5.