Dutch health websites and their ability to inform people with low health literacy |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. HØKH Research Centre, Akershus University Hospital, Norway;2. Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway;1. Institute of Nursing and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway, Norway;2. NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Utrecht, the Netherlands;3. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands;4. Science Centre Health and Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway, Drammen, Norway;5. Department of Behavioural Sciences in Medicine, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;1. Department of Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands;2. Department of Journalism Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands;3. Department of Communication and Information Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands;1. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 7573, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7573, USA;2. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB # 7590, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590, USA;3. Polyglot Systems, Inc., 2000 Aerial Center Pkwy, Morrisville, NC 27560, USA;4. Department of Pediatric Pulmonology, School of Medicine University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 7217, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7217, USA;5. Independent Contractor to Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 7573, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7573, USA;6. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, USA;7. Department of Science and Mathematics, Director of Institutional Research, Husson University, Bangor, ME 04401-2929, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveTo evaluate whether Dutch online health information (OHI) generally reflects message elements that support information processing and understanding among people with low health literacy.MethodsWe content-analyzed one hundred Dutch webpages about Ebola, fibromyalgia, ALS, losing weight, borderline personality disorder, hemorrhoids, ADD, bladder infection, shingles, and chicken pox. The codebook covered the following domains: images and videos, readability level, Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), advertising, interactive features, and reliability cues.ResultsThirty-seven webpages contained informative images that visualized the text. Twelve webpages incorporated videos, six of which were animations. Readability varied widely, but 79.2% of the texts exceeded the recommended B1 level. Half of the webpages had inadequate SAM scores; five were classified as superior. Interactive features were infrequently used. Many webpages included only a few elements that help users evaluate the reliability of OHI. Four presented a quality label.ConclusionOver a wide range of health-related topics, Dutch OHI does not generally contain message elements that improve information processing among people with low health literacy.Practice implicationsCommunication professionals should make better use of digital message features. Videos, narration, and interactivity are scarcely used but can be valuable for people with low health literacy. |
| |
| Keywords: | Health literacy Online health information Information Processing Readability Message design |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
