| Summary: | Objective This exploratory experimental study compared young people’s credibility appraisals and behavioural intentions following exposure to depression treatment information on a Health 2.0 website versus a traditional website. The traditional website listed evidence-based treatment recommendations for depression as judged by field experts. The Health 2.0 website contained information about how helpful each treatment was, as aggregated from feedback from young people with lived experience of depression. Method Participants ( n = 279) were provided with a vignette asking them to imagine that they had just received a diagnosis of depression and they had gone online to find information to guide their treatment choices. They were randomly allocated to view either the traditional or the Health 2.0 website, and were asked to rate the credibility of the depression treatment information provided. They were also asked to indicate the extent to which they would be likely to act on the advice of the website. Results Participants in the traditional website condition rated their website as significantly more influential than did participants presented with the Health 2.0 website. This difference in treatment influence was fully accounted for the participants’ perception of credibility of the information provided by the websites. Conclusion The traditional website was rated as significantly more credible and influential than the Health 2.0 website. Treatment decisions appeared to be based on the extent to which online information appears credible. In conclusion, health-related content was perceived by users as more credible when endorsed by experts than by other users, and perceived message credibility appears to be a powerful determinant of behavioural intentions within the e-health setting.
|
|---|
