Strategies for Assessing Health Information Credibility Among Older Social Media Users in China: A Qualitative Study.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Health Communication Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-28 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2023.2288372
Leanne Chang, Wenshu Li, Xin Xin, Jingyuan Wang
{"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国老年社交媒体用户健康信息可信度评估策略:一项定性研究
社交媒体使用户可以方便地访问在线健康信息,这一事实提出了一个问题,即老年人使用什么信息评估策略来区分值得信赖的健康信息和不可靠的健康信息。确定老年人如何评估他们在社交媒体上获得的健康信息的可信度,是理解和减少他们对健康错误信息易感性的重要一步。在这项研究中,我们调查了中国老年微信用户使用的可信度评估策略。采用定性方法,我们对40名在中国通过微信获取健康信息的65-85岁微信用户(M = 71.75, SD = 6.65)进行了深度访谈。理论主题分析的结果揭示了五种基于来源和基于内容的评估策略:(1)确定来源的交际取向,(2)评估来源的声誉,(3)根据生活经验确认内容,(4)检查声称的效果是否夸大,(5)评估跨来源内容的一致性。老年微信用户对某些启发式线索的依赖以及他们评估信息可信度的自力更生方法为启发式处理与对健康错误信息的易感性之间的联系提供了上下文解释。这一发现对针对中国及其他地区的老年人群的反错误信息干预具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
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.
期刊最新文献
Promoting Resilience and Well-Being of Young Adults with Diabetes Through Digital Storytelling in Arts-Based Research. Has it Really Been 37 Years? The Journey of Health Communication. Narrative Force: How Science and Storytelling Impact Parental Concussion Beliefs and Intentions Through Transportation and Trust. Following Medical Advice of an AI or a Human Doctor? Experimental Evidence Based on Clinician-Patient Communication Pathway Model. COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancies: A Spanish-Language Focus Group Analysis in Texas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1