Cited by 21Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesExpert finding and Q&A systems

Comparing the use of an online expert health network against common information sources to answer health questions

Open access
Rhebergen, Martijn DF, Lenderink, Annet F, van Dijk, Frank JH, Hulshof, Carel TJ·2012·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many workers have questions about occupational safety and health (OSH). It is unknown whether workers are able to find correct, evidence-based answers to OSH questions when they use common information sources, such as websites, or whether they would benefit from using an easily accessible, free-of-charge online network of OSH experts providing advice. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of correct, evidence-based answers to OSH questions in a group of workers who used an online network of OSH experts (intervention group) compared with a group of workers who used common information sources (control group). METHODS: In a quasi-experimental study, workers in the intervention and control groups were randomly offered 2 questions from a pool of 16 standardized OSH questions. Both questions were sent by mail to all participants, who had 3 weeks to answer them. The intervention group was instructed to use only the online network ArboAntwoord, a network of about 80 OSH experts, to solve the questions. The control group was instructed that they could use all information sources available to them. To assess answer correctness as the main study outcome, 16 standardized correct model answers were constructed with the help of reviewers who performed literature searches. Subsequently, the answers provided by all participants in the intervention (n = 94 answers) and control groups (n = 124 answers) were blinded and compared with the correct model answers on the degree of correctness. RESULTS: Of the 94 answers given by participants in the intervention group, 58 were correct (62%), compared with 24 of the 124 answers (19%) in the control group, who mainly used informational websites found via Google. The difference between the 2 groups was significant (rate difference = 43%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 30%-54%). Additional analysis showed that the rate of correct main conclusions of the answers was 85 of 94 answers (90%) in the intervention group and 75 of 124 answers (61%) in the control group (rate difference = 29%, 95% CI 19%-40%). Remarkably, we could not identify differences between workers who provided correct answers and workers who did not on how they experienced the credibility, completeness, and applicability of the information found (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Workers are often unable to find correct answers to OSH questions when using common information sources, generally informational websites. Because workers frequently misjudge the quality of the information they find, other strategies are required to assist workers in finding correct answers. Expert advice provided through an online expert network can be effective for this purpose. As many people experience difficulties in finding correct answers to their health questions, expert networks may be an attractive new source of information for health fields in general.

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 · 10.2196/jmir.1886

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Previous research suggests that patients frequently misjudge the quality of online health information.

    “Previous research suggests that patients frequently misjudge the quality of online health information, and many HCPs fear that social media sites spread misinformation and eclipse provider input into individuals’ health decisions.[20–21,33]”
  • Many HCPs fear that social media sites spread misinformation and eclipse provider input into individuals' health decisions.

    “Previous research suggests that patients frequently misjudge the quality of online health information, and many HCPs fear that social media sites spread misinformation and eclipse provider input into individuals’ health decisions.[20–21,33]”

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
Rhebergen, M. D., Lenderink, A. F., van Dijk, F. J., & Hulshof, C. T.
Affiliations
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Rhebergen, Martijn DF
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2012-02-02
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
e9
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055142640
Cited by
21
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Instituut Gak
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
Keywords
occupational health and safety, health information seeking, information quality, information credibility, information websites, Google search, occupational health advice, health literacy, information overload
MeSH terms
Information Services, Online Systems, Occupational Health, Access to 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