Media Use and Health Information Seeking: An Empirical Test of Complementarity Theory
Abstract
This study compares cancer victims and cancer-free adults' use of communication channels for health information. It tests the complementarity theory (Dutta-Bergman, 2004a, 2004b) with a subsample of the Health Information National Trends Survey data. The complementarity of communication channels for health information use is confirmed on 3 different levels: complementarity among mass media channels, including traditional media and the Internet; complementarity between the interpersonal channel and mass media channels; and complementarity between the interpersonal channel and mass media channels after controlling for illness severity. This study provides strong support for complementarity theory, and extends the complementarity hypothesis into the realm of interpersonal channels of communication. Finally, this investigation suggests cancer victims use the media for health information differently than adults who have not been diagnosed with cancer.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People who engage with one media channel for health information are more likely to engage with other media channels in their search for health information.
“In addition, people who engage with one media channel for health information are more likely to engage with other media channels in their search for health information [33].”
From A Cross-Cultural Comparison of an Extended Planned Risk Information Seeking Model on Mental Health Among College Students: Cross-Sectional Study (2020) · cites this paper as [33]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hou, J., & Shim, M. (2010) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.522691 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Niu, Z., Willoughby, J. F., Mei, J., Li, S., & Hu, P. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/15817 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Lim, J. S., & Hong, N. (2025) · Health & New Media Research · doi:10.22720/hnmr.2025.00115 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tian, Y., & Robinson, J. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri–St. Louis (US)
- University of Dayton (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tian, Yan
- Venue
- Health Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-04-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 184-190
- ISSN
- 1041-0236 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7027
- OpenAlex
- W2080346920
- Cited by
- 112
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 10.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Communication (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Keywords
- complementarity principle, health information seeking, cancer patients, mass media use, interpersonal communication, traditional media, internet use, disease severity, communication channels, Health Information National Trends Survey
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Media, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Internet, Consumer Health Information
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review