Patients' cognitive and behavioral paradoxes in the process of adopting conflicting health information: A dynamic perspective

Abstract

Diversified access to health information has increased the likelihood of encountering conflicting health messages, making it more difficult for patients to adopt information rationally. Prior research has primarily focused on the outcomes of patients' information adoption and responded to concerns by exploring the influences that led to these outcomes, overlooking a crucial aspect. Specifically, patients' cognitive and behavioral responses are continuously fluctuating during the process of information adoption. A total of 336 subjects (valid sample) participated in this study. A combination of situational experiments, grounded theory, and questionnaires was employed to develop a model of patients' adoption of conflicting health information. The concept of "trans-theory" was introduced to explain how patients' cognitive and behavioral responses changed at different segments of adoption. In contrast to prior studies viewing information adoption as a whole, we propose that the process can be divided into four distinct segments: information attention, comprehension, evaluation, and decision. Moreover, the sequential influence of information, ability, psychological, and environmental factors in the adoption process produces three common paradoxes in patients' cognitive and behavioral responses, affecting their ability to make rational adoption decisions. This study explores the dynamics of information adoption from the patient's perspective, providing novel insights into the study of conflicting health information adoption and offering guidance for designing more effective interventions for facilitating rational adoption by patients. Additionally, it can help the healthcare system better understand patients' cognitive and behavioral responses to deliver more effective healthcare services.