Cited by 39Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityCultural Competency in Health CareInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Health Information–seeking Behaviors and Preferences of a Diverse, Multilingual Urban Cohort

Open access
Khoong, Elaine C., Le, Gem M., Hoskote, Mekhala, Rivadeneira, Natalie A., Hiatt, Robert A., Sarkar, Urmimala·2019·Medical Care

Abstract

Introduction: In order to address health disparities, it is important to understand how vulnerable individuals seek information. This study used an adapted version of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) administered in English, Spanish, and Chinese to describe the behaviors and preferences of a diverse group of vulnerable urban residents. Methods: We administered a modified HINTS survey in English, Spanish, and Chinese and used purposive sampling to ensure 50% were non-English speakers evenly divided between Spanish and Chinese speakers, and 50% of English-speakers identified as Black. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with sources used for health information and preferences for delivery of health information. Results: Among 1027survey respondents (514 English, 256 Spanish, 260 Chinese), 55% had adequate health literacy, and 50% reported household income <$20,000, but 77% reported owning a smartphone. A plurality sought health information on the Internet (39%) or from a health care provider (36%). In multivariable analyses, smartphone ownership predicted higher odds of seeking health information on the Internet [odds ratio, (OR) 2.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.81–4.91]. Participants most preferred email (41%) and brochures (40%) for delivery of health information, but non-English survey respondents were less likely to prefer email: Spanish (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11–0.83) and Chinese (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09–0.71). Smartphone ownership predicted an email preference (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.43–3.36). Conclusions: Among vulnerable populations, smartphone ownership and language preferences impact preferences for seeking and receiving health information. These preferences need to be considered in designing health messages.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0000000000001050

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khoong, E. C., Le, G. M., Hoskote, M., Rivadeneira, N. A., Hiatt, R. A., & Sarkar, U.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • San Francisco General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Khoong, Elaine C.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2019-06
Volume
57
Issue
Suppl 2
Pages
S176-S183
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946164321
Cited by
39
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
7.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Cancer Institute (P30CA082103)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
health information seeking, health information preferences, multilingual populations, Spanish speakers, Chinese speakers, African Americans, smartphone ownership, language preference, health literacy, health disparities, vulnerable populations, email communication, brochures, health communication design, urban residents
MeSH terms
Limited English Proficiency, Adult, Age Factors, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Translating, Urban Population, Cohort Studies, Multilingualism, Internet, Electronic Mail, Health Literacy, 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