Teens and Technology Transforming Acne Treatment.
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION
Although the Internet contains many health Web sites with valid information, it also contains sites with false information.
OBJECTIVE
To learn whether high school students searching health care information believe they are using evidence-based sites and to understand their topics of interest, frequently navigated sites, and trust/confidence in the credibility of information found.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Students at a private high school answered an anonymous survey inquiring about their belief that they were using evidence-based sites, topics of interest, search engines of choice, and their trust in information obtained. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis of variance were used to compare trends across grade levels.
RESULTS
Of 705 students enrolled, 24.7% were absent or declined to participate. For the remaining students, 497 completed the surveys, representing a response rate of 70.5% (497/705) and a participation rate of 93.6% (497/531). Overall, 82% of students communicated that they believed they were using evidence-based sources when searching for health information (p < 0.0006). Findings showed that 42% searched general health information, and 43% investigated specific medical conditions; topics related to skin and acne were researched significantly more often (p < 0.05). Overall, most students (80%) reported using Google as their number 1 search engine (p < 0.004), 38% reported using WebMD Search (p < 0.0002), and 50% of students used Wikipedia (not significant).
CONCLUSION
Most students trust health information they learn from the Internet. We found it chilling that less than half of students obtained their information from a Web site with health care professionals' oversight.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.