Influencing Factors of Online Health Information Seeking in Selected European Countries: Analysis of Country Specifics

Patients’ participation in healthcare requires comprehensive health knowledge and can benefit from online health information seeking behaviours (O-HISB). The internet is a particularly vital source for seeking health-related information in many regions of the world. Therefore, we take a European cross-country comparative perspective on O-HISB. We aim to compare the importance of personal, health(care)-related, and cognitive determinants of using the internet for health-related purposes in four European countries. We conducted online surveys among the German, Swiss, Dutch, and Austrian public and described patterns of health information seeking online. The internet seemed to be a widely used source of health information in the four selected European countries. The explanation patterns of personal, health(care)-related, and cognitive factors differ by country and between selecting the internet as a source of health information and the frequency of online use. Using online media appeared to be more common for women and for current health problems. Respondents’ willingness and competencies are essential for online health information seeking. To prevent the increase of social and health-related disparities, there is an urgent need to support underprivileged population groups and increase motivations and eHealth literacy to use the internet for health-related purposes

Choosing wisely: assessment of current US top five list recommendations' trustworthiness using a pragmatic approach

OBJECTIVES: Identification of sufficiently trustworthy top 5 list recommendations from the US Choosing Wisely campaign. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: All top 5 list recommendations available from the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation website. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/INTERVENTIONS: Compilation of US top 5 lists and search for current German highly trustworthy (S3) guidelines. Extraction of guideline recommendations, including grade of recommendation (GoR), for suggestions comparable to top 5 list recommendations. For recommendations without guideline equivalents, the methodological quality of the top 5 list development process was assessed using criteria similar to that used to judge guidelines, and relevant meta-literature was identified in cited references. Judgement of sufficient trustworthiness of top 5 list recommendations was based either on an 'A' GoR of guideline equivalents or on high methodological quality and citation of relevant meta-literature. RESULTS: 412 top 5 list recommendations were identified. For 75 (18%), equivalents were found in current German S3 guidelines. 44 of these recommendations were associated with an 'A' GoR, or a strong recommendation based on strong evidence, and 26 had a 'B' or a 'C' GoR. No GoR was provided for 5 recommendations. 337 recommendations had no equivalent in the German S3 guidelines. The methodological quality of the development process was high and relevant meta-literature was cited for 87 top 5 list recommendations. For a further 36, either the methodological quality was high without any meta-literature citations or meta-literature citations existed but the methodological quality was lacking. For the remaining 214 recommendations, either the methodological quality was lacking and no literature was cited or the methodological quality was generally unsatisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: 131 of current US top 5 list recommendations were found to be sufficiently trustworthy. For a substantial number of current US top 5 list recommendations, their trustworthiness remains unclear. Methodological requirements for developing top 5 lists are recommended