Cited by 53Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

“That Should Be Left to Doctors, That’s What They are There For!”—Exploring the Reflexivity and Trust of Young Adults When Seeking Health Information

Open access
Mendes, Álvaro, Abreu, Liliana, Vilar-Correia, Maria Rui, Borlido-Santos, Júlio·2017·Health Communication

Abstract

This paper explores the health information-seeking practices of healthy young adults and how they assess and rank sources of information through a qualitative study. The findings show that participants (a) are strongly committed to searching for information about health and lifestyle, especially via the Internet; (b) healthcare professionals were perceived as the most reliable source of health information and advice; (c) online health information, although frequently accessed and experienced as empowering, is seen as a potentially unreliable source. Findings evidence how becoming better informed about health-related topics plays a pivotal role in individuals' lives, most notably by using the Internet. Participants were able to reflect about what it means to know about health. The construction of trust regarding health information involved a heuristic process vis-à-vis source reliability and perceived credibility that places doctors as the most trustworthy medium of medical advice and health information. We conclude that participants' trust toward professionals suggests the preference and need for more personalized care; and it is a response to the ambiguity and uncertainty that permeates the health information landscape, particularly that which is web-based.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10410236.2016.1199081

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mendes, Á., Abreu, L., Vilar-Correia, M. R., & Borlido-Santos, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidade do Porto (PT)
  • i3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto
Venue
Health Communication
Published
2016-08-02
Volume
32
Issue
9
Pages
1076-1081
ISSN
  • 1041-0236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7027
OpenAlex
W2479798557
Cited by
53
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
8.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Health Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • FCT/Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação - project “ Institute for Research and Innovation in Health Sciences“ (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007274)
  • FEDER (COMPETE 2020 - POCI, Portugal 2020)
  • FCT (SFRH/BPD/88647/2012, SFRH/BD/78949/2011)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
health information seeking, young adults, trust in health information, source reliability, online health information, physician-patient relationship, perceived credibility, heuristics, individualized care, health literacy
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Physicians, Reproducibility of Results, Internet, Trust, Qualitative Research, Consumer Health Information, Information Seeking Behavior

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