Using Web 2.0 Technologies to Enhance Evidence-Based Medical Information

This article invokes research on information seeking and evaluation to address how providers of evidence-based medical information can use Web 2.0 technologies to increase access to, enliven users’ experiences with, and enrich the quality of the information available. In an ideal scenario, evidence-based medical information can take appropriate advantage of community intelligence spawned by Web 2.0 technologies, resulting in the ideal combination of scientifically sound, high-quality information that is imbued with experiential insights from a multitude of individuals. To achieve this goal, the authors argue that people will engage with information that they can access easily, and that they perceive as (a) relevant to their information-seeking goals and (b) credible. The authors suggest the utility of Web 2.0 technologies for engaging stakeholders with evidence-based medical information through these mechanisms, and the degree to which the information provided can and should be trusted. Last, the authors discuss potential problems with Web 2.0 information in relation to decision making in health contexts, and they conclude with specific and practical recommendations for the dissemination of evidence-based health information via Web 2.0 technologies.

[1]  Jay M Bernhardt,et al.  Dissemination 2.0: Closing the Gap Between Knowledge and Practice With New Media and Marketing , 2011, Journal of health communication.

[2]  J. Gillon,et al.  Group dynamics , 1996 .

[3]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online , 2010 .

[4]  Brian K. Thorn,et al.  Discretionary Databases: Theory, Data, and Implications , 1990 .

[5]  Gary L. Kreps,et al.  Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[6]  G. Eysenbach.  Credibility of Health Information and Digital Media: New Perspectives and Implications for Youth , 2007 .

[7]  Janet Morahan-Martin,et al.  How Internet Users Find, Evaluate, and Use Online Health Information: A Cross-Cultural Review , 2004, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[8]  Janet Fulk,et al.  Organizations and Communication Technology , 1990 .

[9]  Dario Taraborelli.  How the Web Is Changing the Way We Trust , 2008 .

[10]  Dolores Albarracín,et al.  Attitudes and persuasion: From biology to social responses to persuasive intent. , 2010 .

[11]  WangPeiling,et al.  A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. document selection , 1998 .

[12]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment , 2003 .

[13]  Werner Wirth,et al.  Heuristic and Systematic Use of Search Engines , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[14]  T. Park.  The Nature of Relevance in Information Retrieval: An Empirical Study , 1993, The Library Quarterly.

[15]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[16]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[17]  A. A. Lumsdaine.  Communication and persuasion , 1954 .

[18]  Kakuzo Iwamura,et al.  λ credibility , 2009 .

[19]  Soo Young Rieh,et al.  Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework , 2007, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Anthony Debons,et al.  Information seeking: Assessing and anticipating user needs , 1986, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[21]  A. Briggle,et al.  Current issues in computing and philosophy , 2008 .

[22]  Lynn Silipigni Connaway,et al.  What is enough? Satisficing information needs , 2007, J. Documentation.

[23]  Carol L. Barry.  User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study , 1994 .

[24]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  User-Generated Ratings and the Evaluation of Credibility and Product Quality in Ecommerce Transactions , 2011, 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[25]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  A Test of the Individual Action Model for Organizational Information Commons , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[26]  Andrew Keen,et al.  Book Review: Andrew Keen, The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy. London and Boston, MA: Currency/Doubleday, 2007. 228 pp. ISBN 0—3855—2080—8, $22.95 (pbk) , 2008, New Media Soc..

[27]  N. Roberts,et al.  Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority: P. Wilson. London: Greenwood Press, 1983. 210 pp. ISBN 0 313 23763 8. £28.95. , 1985 .

[28]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Connective and Communal Public Goods in Interactive Communication Systems , 1996 .

[29]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  The credibility of volunteered geographic information , 2008 .

[30]  Plowright,et al.  The Cult of the Amateur： How Today＇s Internet is Killing Our Culture , 2008 .

[31]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Variations in Decision Makers' Use of Information Sources: The Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Information. , 1980 .

[32]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Variations in Decision Makers' Use of Information Sources: The Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Information , 1982 .

[33]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Public Communication Campaigns , 2012 .

[34]  Peter Pirolli,et al.  Rational Analyses of Information Foraging on the Web , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[35]  Carol L. Barry.  User-Defined Relevance Criteria: An Exploratory Study , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[36]  L. Garrison,et al.  Facebook tops 500 million users , 2011 .

[37]  Reijo Savolainen,et al.  Media credibility and cognitive authority. The case of seeking orienting information , 2007, Inf. Res..

[38]  Bradford W. Hesse,et al.  Realizing the Promise of Web 2.0: Engaging Community Intelligence , 2011, Journal of health communication.

[39]  David Bawden,et al.  Introduction to Information Science , 2012 .