Untitled

Ding, Ying; Jacob, Elin K.; Fried, Michael; Toma, Ioan; Yan, Erjia; Foo, Schubert; Milojević, Staša

doi:10.1002/asi.v61:3

Cited by 59 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 541 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has shown that a higher education does not guarantee better Internet skills [36,37] and other studies among higher educated populations confirm these results. For example, Hughes et al [38] showed that doctors often choose their search results based on navigational bias and a focus on what is known, and Stellefson et al [39] found that many health professional college students are rather unconfident when evaluating information from the Internet. Furthermore, a younger age and more Internet experience might enhance operational skills, but previous studies have found that strategic eHealth literacy problems are still frequently present among students who grew up using the Internet [16,17,19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Actual eHealth Literacy Among Patients With Rheumatic Diseases: a Qualitative Analysis of Problems Encountered Using Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 Applications

Vaart¹,

Drossaert²,

Heus³

et al. 2013

J Med Internet Res

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Internet offers diverse opportunities for disease management, through information websites (Health 1.0) and interactive applications such as peer support forums, online consults, and insight into electronic medical records (Health 2.0). However, various skills are required to benefit from Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 applications for one’s own health, known as eHealth literacy.ObjectiveTo study the eHealth literacy of patients with rheumatic diseases and the types of problems they encounter when using the Internet in relation to their disease.MethodsIn two studies, patients were asked about their current disease-related Internet use and their eHealth literacy was observed during performance tests. In study 1, 15 patients (aged 39-74) performed 6 information-retrieval tasks on the Internet (Health 1.0). In study 2, 16 patients (aged 24-72) performed 3 Health 2.0 tasks on a hospital-based online Web portal and 2 Health 2.0 tasks on interactive websites. Participants were asked to think aloud while performing the assignments, and screen activities were recorded. Types and frequency of problems were identified by 2 independent researchers and coded into categories using inductive analysis.ResultsAlmost all patients in our studies had searched the Internet for information about rheumatic diseases in the past. Fewer patients had used Health 2.0 applications, but many were nevertheless enthusiastic about the possibilities from Health 2.0 applications after finishing the assignments. However, nearly all participants experienced difficulties, and a substantial number of participants were not able to complete all of the assignments. Encountered problems could be divided into 6 sequential categories: (1) operating the computer and Internet browser, (2) navigating and orientating on the Web, (3) utilizing search strategies, (4) evaluating relevance and reliability, (5) adding content to the Web, and (6) protecting and respecting privacy. Most severe difficulties occurred in levels 3 and 4—in formulating a search query, evaluating the source of the information, and in scanning a website for relevant information.ConclusionsMany patients have insufficient skills to properly use Health 1.0 and Health 2.0. Formulating proper search strategies and evaluating the found information caused problems among the majority of patients. Concerning Health 2.0, use and awareness of these applications is low and patients should be guided in the use of them. Our findings may contribute to the awareness of patients’ eHealth literacy problems among health professionals, and stress the importance of usability guidelines in Web design.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Actual eHealth Literacy Among Patients With Rheumatic Diseases: a Qualitative Analysis of Problems Encountered Using Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 Applications

Vaart¹,

Drossaert²,

Heus³

et al. 2013

J Med Internet Res

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nov et al [23] found that tenure (length of membership) in an online photo-sharing community affects participation, but the effect depends on the type of participation activity, e.g. information-artifact sharing decreases for longer-tenure users, while meta-information sharing and social structures participation increases.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Precision CrowdSourcing

Zhao

Huang

Harper

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work &Amp; Social Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We introduce a theoretical framework called precision crowdsourcing whose goal is to help turn online information consumers into information contributors. The framework looks at the timing and nature of the requests made of users and the feedback provided to users with the goal of increasing long-term contribution and engagement in the site or system. We present the results of a field experiment in which almost 3000 users were asked to tag movies (plus a null control group) as we varied the selection of task (popular/obscure), timing of requests (immediate or varying delays), and relational rhetoric (neutral, system reciprocal, other users reciprocal) of the requests. We found that asking increases tags provided overall, though asking generally decreases the provision of unprompted tags. Users were more likely to comply with our request when we asked them to tag obscure movies and when we used reciprocal request rhetoric.

show abstract

“…These include Object Reuse and Exchange ( Van de Sompel et al, 2012), Resource Sync (Pepe, Mayernik, Borgman, & Van de Sompel, 2010), and Scholarly Research Objects (Bechhofer et al, 2010). Yet another model is "Linked Open Science" (Kauppinen & Espindola, 2011) that supports "executable papers" in which tools and data for reproducing analyses are embedded.…”

Section: Technical Access To Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring openness in data and science: What is “open,” to whom, when, and why?

Pasquetto

Sands

Borgman

2015

Proc. Assoc. Info. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Open data” is a popular phrase in research practice and science policy. While stakeholders agree on some aspects of this concept, many others remain hotly debated. As a means to identify the main themes and arguments surrounding open data, we analyzed highly cited publications from the last 10 years that address data sharing or open access to research data. We identify and synthesize eight components of open data that vary among policies, studies, and initiatives, and present problematic arguments worthy of further investigation.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 59 publications

References 541 publications

Measuring Actual eHealth Literacy Among Patients With Rheumatic Diseases: a Qualitative Analysis of Problems Encountered Using Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 Applications

Measuring Actual eHealth Literacy Among Patients With Rheumatic Diseases: a Qualitative Analysis of Problems Encountered Using Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 Applications

Precision CrowdSourcing

Exploring openness in data and science: What is “open,” to whom, when, and why?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About