{"title":"Strategies for Assessing Health Information Credibility Among Older Social Media Users in China: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Leanne Chang, Wenshu Li, Xin Xin, Jingyuan Wang","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2023.2288372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The fact that social media gives users easy access to online health information raises the question of what information evaluation strategies older adults use to distinguish trustworthy from unreliable health information. Identifying how older adults assess the credibility of health information that they acquire on social media is an important step toward understanding and reducing their susceptibility to health misinformation. In this study, we investigated the credibility assessment strategies used by older WeChat users in China. Following a qualitative approach, we conducted in-depth interviews with 40 WeChat users 65-85 years old (<i>M</i> = 71.75, <i>SD</i> = 6.65) in China who had acquired health information on WeChat. Results of theoretical thematic analysis revealed five source-based and content-based evaluative strategies: (1) determining the communicative orientation of the source, (2) assessing source reputation, (3) confirming content based on life experiences, (4) checking for exaggeration in claimed effects, and (5) assessing the consistency of content across sources. Older WeChat users' reliance on certain heuristic cues and their self-reliant approach to assessing information credibility provide contextual explanations for the link between heuristic processing and susceptibility to health misinformation. The findings have implications for anti-misinformation interventions targeting the older population in China and potentially beyond.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2288372","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The fact that social media gives users easy access to online health information raises the question of what information evaluation strategies older adults use to distinguish trustworthy from unreliable health information. Identifying how older adults assess the credibility of health information that they acquire on social media is an important step toward understanding and reducing their susceptibility to health misinformation. In this study, we investigated the credibility assessment strategies used by older WeChat users in China. Following a qualitative approach, we conducted in-depth interviews with 40 WeChat users 65-85 years old (M = 71.75, SD = 6.65) in China who had acquired health information on WeChat. Results of theoretical thematic analysis revealed five source-based and content-based evaluative strategies: (1) determining the communicative orientation of the source, (2) assessing source reputation, (3) confirming content based on life experiences, (4) checking for exaggeration in claimed effects, and (5) assessing the consistency of content across sources. Older WeChat users' reliance on certain heuristic cues and their self-reliant approach to assessing information credibility provide contextual explanations for the link between heuristic processing and susceptibility to health misinformation. The findings have implications for anti-misinformation interventions targeting the older population in China and potentially beyond.
期刊介绍:
As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.