Cited by 15Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityHealth Sciences Research and EducationEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Self‐epistemic authority and nurses' reactions to medical information that is retrieved from Internet sites of different credibility

Barnoy, Sivia, Volfin‐Pruss, Diana, Ehrenfeld, Malka, Kushnir, Talma·2011·Nursing & Health Sciences

Abstract

This cross‐sectional study investigated nurses' reactions to Internet medical information that was retrieved from sources of different scientific credibility and the association between self‐epistemic authority and these reactions. The participants filled in questionnaires on their reactions to Internet medical information and self‐epistemic authority. The nurses' reactions to Internet medical information from a highly credible source (Medline) correlated positively with self‐epistemic authority. However, no such correlation was found with Internet medical information from a less credible Internet source (Ynet). Compared with the nurses without an academic degree, the nurses with an academic degree had more positive reactions to the information that was retrieved from Medline. The reactions to the medical information that was retrieved from Ynet did not differ by the education of the nurses. This study shows that nurses' reactions to different sources of Internet information vary according to their level of self‐epistemic authority and education. As patients' use of Internet medical information is increasing, nurses need to expand their expertise in the various professional and popular medical information sites. Such skills will help to reduce any negative feeling that might arise when they encounter patients who present medical information from the Internet.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2011.00626.x

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

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Authors
Barnoy, S., Volfin‐Pruss, D., Ehrenfeld, M., & Kushnir, T.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Yehuda Abarbanel Mental Health Center (IL)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Corresponding author
Barnoy, Sivia
Venue
Nursing & Health Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-08-03
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
366-370
ISSN
  • 1441-0745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1442-2018
OpenAlex
W1573035427
Cited by
15
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nursing and Health Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
online health information, source credibility, MEDLINE, nursing education level, nursing expertise
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Israel, Nurse-Patient Relations, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Nursing Methodology Research, MEDLINE, Self Efficacy, Internet, Trust, 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