Cited by 161Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Consumer health information seeking as hypothesis testing

Open access
Keselman, A., Browne, A. C., Kaufman, D. R.·2008·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite the proliferation of consumer health sites, lay individuals often experience difficulty finding health information online. The present study attempts to understand users' information seeking difficulties by drawing on a hypothesis testing explanatory framework. It also addresses the role of user competencies and their interaction with internet resources. DESIGN: Twenty participants were interviewed about their understanding of a hypothetical scenario about a family member suffering from stable angina and then searched MedlinePlus consumer health information portal for information on the problem presented in the scenario. Participants' understanding of heart disease was analyzed via semantic analysis. Thematic coding was used to describe information seeking trajectories in terms of three key strategies: verification of the primary hypothesis, narrowing search within the general hypothesis area and bottom-up search. RESULTS: Compared to an expert model, participants' understanding of heart disease involved different key concepts, which were also differently grouped and defined. This understanding provided the framework for search-guiding hypotheses and results interpretation. Incorrect or imprecise domain knowledge led individuals to search for information on irrelevant sites, often seeking out data to confirm their incorrect initial hypotheses. Online search skills enhanced search efficiency, but did not eliminate these difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of their web experience and general search skills, lay individuals may experience difficulty with health information searches. These difficulties may be related to formulating and evaluating hypotheses that are rooted in their domain knowledge. Informatics can provide support at the levels of health information portals, individual websites, and consumer education tools.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m2449

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 161

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jansen BJ, Pooch U. Web user studies: a review and framework for future work. JASIST. 2001;52(3):235-46.
  2. Patel VL, Groen GJ. The general and specific nature of medical expertise: A critical look. In: Ericsson A, Smith J, editor. Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991. p. 93-125.

Authors
Keselman, A., Browne, A. C., & Kaufman, D. R.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Keselman, A.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2008-07-01
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
484-495
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W1496069973
Cited by
161
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 14
FWCI
20.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM008799)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
hypothesis testing, non-expert users, online health information, MedlinePlus, stable angina, domain knowledge, search strategies, bottom-up search, health information portal, consumer health education
MeSH terms
Angina Pectoris, Humans, Information Theory, User-Computer Interface, Information Storage and Retrieval, Internet, MedlinePlus, 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