Enhancing learning through use of interactive tools on health-related websites

Abstract

The Internet offers a unique means of health promotion through the use of interactive tools like chat rooms, E-mail, hyperlinks and the like. This paper reports a study examining links between learning and interactivity of health-related websites. We address three research questions. First, are tools of interactivity present in health-related websites? Second, how prevalent is the occurrence of these interactive tools for three relevant top level domains (TLD) (e.g. .com, .gov and .org)? Finally, are there differences in how representative websites of diverse TLDs employ these interactive tools along nine dimensions of interactivity? A content analysis of 30 websites revealed that while the majority of sites in our sample do use interactive tools, overall the occurrence is quite low. An examination of the use of tools of interactivity across three different TLDs revealed that .com sites used a greater number of tools, followed by .gov sites and, lastly, .org sites. We also found support for our third research question, that different TLDs employ these tools of interactivity differently. How these differences may impact learning are discussed.

The Impact of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness of Corporate Websites: A Mediated Moderation Model

“…By contrast, Steuer (1992) viewed interactivity from a structural perspective and defined the concept as "the extent to which users can participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment in real time" (p. 84) while Newhagen et al (1995) were the first to propose the concept of perceived interactivity and defined it as "the psychological sense message senders have of their own and of the receivers' interactivity" (p. 165). Nevertheless, the extant review of empirical research on interactivity literature advocates the dichotomous approach "structural versus perceptual" (Boushra, 2008;Lee, Hong, & Lee, 2006;Liu & Shrum, 2002;McMillan, 2002;Pavlov & Stewart, 2000;Song & Bucy, 2008;Song & Zinkhan, 2008;Stout, Villegas, & Kim, 2001;Wu, 1999). While the structural approach regards interactivity as a medium characteristic or a feature, and it operationalizes the actual interactivity level by varying the number and kinds of the interactive features (e.g., Fortin, 1997;Raney et al, 2003;Wu, 2005;Voorveld et al, 2011), the perceptual approach tend to view interactivity as the user's subjective experience and uses an itemized scale to measure it (e.g., Song & Bucy 2008;McMillan & Hwang 2002;Wu, 2000).…”

“…Nevertheless, Stout et al (2001) argued that although the structural and perceptual approaches of interactivity are different, they complement one other. Moreover, they asserted the importance of the structural approach as it provides the guidelines for the website's design.…”

Small is Big: Interactive Trumps Passive Information in Breaking Information Barriers and Impacting Behavioral Antecedents

“…While there are many forms of interactive information [30], we chose to implement this interactive information study through "serious games"-games with a primary purpose other than entertainment-due to the ability to provide immediate feedback and a cohesive environment for a breadth of topics. Though often used interchangeably, serious games differ from "gamification" in that gamification, rather than being a self-contained game, is "the use of game design elements in non-game contexts" [31].…”

Developing a comprehensive, effective patient-friendly website to enhance decision making in predictive testing for Huntington disease

“…All aspects of website design, including layout, diagrams, content, and documentary/diagram development, were based on established principles in successful Web-based education and decision-facilitation tools. 23,[34][35][36] Once the website was live and fully operational, a pilot test of the site was conducted to evaluate the content and test usability. A short Web-based survey was sent to 35 select individuals who had participated in the interview study (n = 10), genetic counselors across North America (n = 5), HD researchers and HD experts (n = 10), and lay individuals (n = 10).…”