Background: Seeking health information on the internet is very popular despite the debatable ability of lay users to evaluate the quality of health information and uneven quality of information available on the Web. Consulting the internet for health information is pervasive, particularly when other sources are inaccessible because of time, distance, and money constraints or when sensitive or embarrassing questions are to be explored. Question and answer (Q&A) platforms are Web-based services that provide personalized health advice upon the information seekers' request. However, it is not clear how the quality of health advices is ensured on these platforms.
Objective: The objective of this study was to identify how platform design impacts the quality of Web-based health advices and equal access to health information on the internet.
Methods: A total of 900 Q&As were collected from 9 Q&A platforms with different design features. Data on the design features for each platform were generated. Paid physicians evaluated the data to quantify the quality of health advices. Guided by the literature, the design features that affected information quality were identified and recorded for each Q&A platform. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and unbiased regression tree methods were used for the analysis.
Results: Q&A platform design and health advice quality were related. Expertise of information providers (beta=.48; P=.001), financial incentive (beta=.4; P=.001), external reputation (beta=.28; P=.002), and question quality (beta=.12; P=.001) best predicted health advice quality. Virtual incentive, Web 2.0 mechanisms, and reputation systems were not associated with health advice quality.
Conclusions: Access to high-quality health advices on the internet is unequal and skewed toward high-income and high-literacy groups. However, there are possibilities to generate high-quality health advices for free.
Keywords: eHealth; health care access; health information; health literacy; information literacy; internet health information.
©Fatemeh Ameri, Kathleen Keeling, Reza Salehnejad. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 15.01.2020.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Ill Literates or Illiterates? Investigating the eHealth Literacy of Users of Online Health Communities.J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 4;19(10):e331. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7372. J Med Internet Res. 2017. PMID: 28978496 Free PMC article.
Investigating the Role of Communication for Information Seekers' Trust-Related Evaluations of Health Videos on the Web: Content Analysis, Survey Data, and Experiment.Interact J Med Res. 2018 Dec 21;7(2):e10282. doi: 10.2196/10282. Interact J Med Res. 2018. PMID: 30578181 Free PMC article.
Consumer Use of "Dr Google": A Survey on Health Information-Seeking Behaviors and Navigational Needs.J Med Internet Res. 2015 Dec 29;17(12):e288. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4345. J Med Internet Res. 2015. PMID: 26715363 Free PMC article.
The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 7;(9):CD008451. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008451.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. PMID: 21901722 Review.
The Voice of Chinese Health Consumers: A Text Mining Approach to Web-Based Physician Reviews.J Med Internet Res. 2016 May 10;18(5):e108. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4430. J Med Internet Res. 2016. PMID: 27165558 Free PMC article. Review.