| Summary: | 碩士 === 長庚大學 === 護理學研究所 === 94 === Abstract
The purpose of this study is to develop and test the evaluation indicator on consumer’s health information, and to look into the result of using this method as a tool to help the general public assess the quality of health information. The first stage is to investigate the current available literature in and outside Taiwan to establish “evaluation indicator of consumer health information”. After being examined by 7 experts, CVI reached .89. The second stage is to design a cross-sectional preliminary test and subsequent test. A preliminary test was done on December 9, 2005 with 13 Chang Gung University students under three pre-set health information scenarios: Kingnet website introducing avian flu, one Hong Kong website on avian flu and one Taiwan website on Dengue Fever to test the confidence level on consistency. The confidence level test was done again in two weeks. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the three web-based health scenario were .86, .85, .91 respectively. The score of the second test was ranged between .08 - .77.
Subsequently, the data collection process was officially done in the outdoor area of 101 building using the same pre-set health information scenarios from Feb 25, 2006 to March 12, 2006. The software SPSS for Windows 12.0 was utilized to make the analysis with descriptive statistics, one way ANOVA, paired-t test and independent-t test.
The findings are listed below:
1. There is a difference between the consumers and experts regarding what is important in the 12 “evaluation indicators of consumer health information”. The opinion of the six experts: one indicator “announcing the vendor who sponsors the website and/or the institution that supports the website” was regarded as unimportant by one expert (16.7%); the rest of the 11 evaluation indicators were regarded as important (100%). On the other hands, the indicator “providing health information to meet the user’s demand” was regarded the most important (100%). The second most important indicators were “stating the writer of each article – professional certification”(99.19%), “providing clear health information” (99.19%), and “providing easy-to-read health information” (99.19%). The three least important evaluation indicators by the majority of people were “website information was based on proven scientific subject matter” (89.51%), “marking the name of the responsible person for the website” (72.58%), “announcing the vendor who sponsors the website or institution that supports the website” (70.16%)
2. In the first website scenario, among the 12 indicators, there was a significant difference between the consumers and health experts in the score of one indicator: “updating website regularly and publishing the latest information & its date”.
3. In the second website scenario, among the 12 indicators, there were significant differences between the consumers and experts in the score of three indicators: “explaining the purpose of the website”, “whether the writer of each article is indicated on the website” and “announcing the website launch date & the information update time”.
4. In the third website scenario, among the 12 indicators, there were significant differences between the consumers and experts in the score of three indicators: “explaining the purpose of the website”, “whether the experiences of the writer for each article is included on the website – professional certification”, etc.
5. In study of the confidence level of the health information quality on the three pre-set websites, the statistics was not significant.
The above result can be used as a reference to the consumer in the future when they search for health information on the internet. Several items should be focused on when an internet search on health information is done, for example, “whether or not the website was updated regularly, whether or not the latest information & the update time were published”, “whether or not the vendor who sponsors the website and/or the institution who supports the website is indicated”, “whether or not the purpose of the website is explained”, “whether or not the name of the responsible person for the website is disclosed”.
Key word: Consumer health information evaluation criteria, Validity, Reliability
|
|---|
