skip to main content
10.1145/3176349.3176881acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

What Sources to Rely on:: Laypeople's Source Selection in Online Health Information Seeking

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 March 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this study, we examined what sources laypeople would select (i.e., visit and adopt) to resolve their health-related information needs, and how different health conditions affect the selection. Twenty-four college students participated in this user study, where they were asked to search for two separate health issues respectively: multiple sclerosis and weight loss. The search logs were collected and analyzed afterwards. We classify the online information sources on both website level and webpage level, and a webpage classification scheme based on genre is proposed. Results suggest that users» selection of sources depends on different types of health issues in terms of urgency and complexity. Health-specific webpage is a popular source and highly adopted for both tasks, but it is particularly helpful for urgent and complex health conditions. Search engines could facilitate users to navigate among scattered health information and support concerns regarding common health issues.

References

  1. Pew Reseach Center. 2013. Health Fact Sheet. Pew Res. Cent. Internet Sci. Tech (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Christoph Hölscher and Gerhard Strube. 2000. Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Computer networks 33, 1 (2000), 337--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jiepu Jiang, Daqing He, Diane Kelly, and James Allan. 2017. Understanding Ephemeral State of Relevance. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. ACM, 137--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ioannis Kanaris and Efstathios Stamatatos. 2009. Learning to recognize webpage genres. Information Processing&Management 45, 5 (2009), 499--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ruth Ann Marrie, Amber R Salter, Tuula Tyry, Robert J Fox, and Gary R Cutter. 2013. Preferred sources of health information in persons with multiple sclerosis: degree of trust and information sought. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15, 4 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Heather N Mewes. 1998. Memorandum of Understanding on the Generic Top- Level Domain Name Space of the Internet Domain Name System. Berkeley Technology Law Journal (1998), 235--247.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christine Percheski and Eszter Hargittai. 2011. Health information-seeking in the digital age. Journal of American College Health 59, 5 (2011), 379--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Susan L Perez, Debora A Paterniti, Machelle Wilson, Robert A Bell, Man Shan Chan, Chloe C Villareal, Hien Huy Nguyen, and Richard L Kravitz. 2015. Characterizing the processes for navigating Internet health information using real-time observations: a mixed-methods approach. Journal of medical Internet research 17, 7 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Joseph Sharit, Jessica Taha, RonaldWBerkowsky, Halley Profita, and Sara J Czaja. 2015. Online information search performance and search strategies in a health problem-solving scenario. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 9, 3 (2015), 211--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Ryen W White, Susan T Dumais, and Jaime Teevan. 2009. Characterizing the influence of domain expertise on web search behavior. In Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on web search and data mining. ACM, 132--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yan Zhang, Ramona Broussard, Weimao Ke, and Xuemei Gong. 2014. Evaluation of a scatter/gather interface for supporting distinct health information search tasks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65, 5 (2014), 1028--1041. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Yan Zhang, Yalin Sun, and Yeolib Kim. 2017. The influence of individual differences on consumer's selection of online sources for health information. Computers in Human Behavior 67 (2017), 303--312. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. What Sources to Rely on:: Laypeople's Source Selection in Online Health Information Seeking

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              CHIIR '18: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval
              March 2018
              402 pages
              ISBN:9781450349253
              DOI:10.1145/3176349

              Copyright © 2018 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 1 March 2018

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • short-paper

              Acceptance Rates

              CHIIR '18 Paper Acceptance Rate22of57submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate55of163submissions,34%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader