FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2228517709> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2228517709 endingPage "e4" @default.
• W2228517709 startingPage "e4" @default.
• W2228517709 abstract "Concerns over online health information-seeking behavior point to the potential harm incorrect, incomplete, or biased information may cause. However, systematic reviews of health information have found few examples of documented harm that can be directly attributed to poor quality information found online.The aim of this study was to improve our understanding of the quality and quality characteristics of information found in online discussion forum websites so that their likely value as a peer-to-peer health information-sharing platform could be assessed.A total of 25 health discussion threads were selected across 3 websites (Reddit, Mumsnet, and Patient) covering 3 health conditions (human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], diabetes, and chickenpox). Assessors were asked to rate information found in the discussion threads according to 5 criteria: accuracy, completeness, how sensible the replies were, how they thought the questioner would act, and how useful they thought the questioner would find the replies.In all, 78 fully completed assessments were returned by 17 individuals (8 were qualified medical doctors, 9 were not). When the ratings awarded in the assessments were analyzed, 25 of the assessments placed the discussion threads in the highest possible score band rating them between 5 and 10 overall, 38 rated them between 11 and 15, 12 rated them between 16 and 20, and 3 placed the discussion thread they assessed in the lowest rating band (21-25). This suggests that health threads on Internet discussion forum websites are more likely than not (by a factor of 4:1) to contain information of high or reasonably high quality. Extremely poor information is rare; the lowest available assessment rating was awarded only 11 times out of a possible 353, whereas the highest was awarded 54 times. Only 3 of 78 fully completed assessments rated a discussion thread in the lowest possible overall band of 21 to 25, whereas 25 of 78 rated it in the highest of 5 to 10. Quality assessments differed depending on the health condition (chickenpox appeared 17 times in the 20 lowest-rated threads, HIV twice, and diabetes once). Although assessors tended to agree on which discussion threads contained good quality information, what constituted poor quality information appeared to be more subjective.Most of the information assessed in this study was considered by qualified medical doctors and nonmedically qualified respondents to be of reasonably good quality. Although a small amount of information was assessed as poor, not all respondents agreed that the original questioner would have been led to act inappropriately based on the information presented. This suggests that discussion forum websites may be a useful platform through which people can ask health-related questions and receive answers of acceptable quality." @default.
• W2228517709 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2228517709 creator A5032771817 @default.
• W2228517709 creator A5038148267 @default.
• W2228517709 creator A5086558865 @default.
• W2228517709 date "2016-01-06" @default.
• W2228517709 modified "2023-10-06" @default.
• W2228517709 title "Health Advice from Internet Discussion Forums: How Bad Is Dangerous?" @default.
• W2228517709 cites W123848888 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W1495370580 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W1498339595 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W1964745528 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W1976982606 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2008223729 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2010863555 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2011596968 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2023066611 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2033243956 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2045835403 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2053411346 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2058837212 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2060844203 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2061474427 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2068725194 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2079175517 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2090132061 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2095209840 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2109730467 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2120371736 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2135342506 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2139185994 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2141027733 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2147749164 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2160348997 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2169847739 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2170613584 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2425497923 @default.
• W2228517709 cites W2493203568 @default.
• W2228517709 doi "https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5051" @default.
• W2228517709 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4720952" @default.
• W2228517709 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26740148" @default.
• W2228517709 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2228517709 type Work @default.
• W2228517709 sameAs 2228517709 @default.
• W2228517709 citedByCount "92" @default.
• W2228517709 countsByYear W22285177092016 @default.
• W2228517709 countsByYear W22285177092017 @default.
• W2228517709 countsByYear W22285177092018 @default.
• W2228517709 countsByYear W22285177092019 @default.
• W2228517709 countsByYear W22285177092020 @default.
• W2228517709 countsByYear W22285177092021 @default.
• W2228517709 countsByYear W22285177092022 @default.
• W2228517709 countsByYear W22285177092023 @default.
• W2228517709 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2228517709 hasAuthorship W2228517709A5032771817 @default.
• W2228517709 hasAuthorship W2228517709A5038148267 @default.
• W2228517709 hasAuthorship W2228517709A5086558865 @default.
• W2228517709 hasBestOaLocation W22285177091 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C119599485 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C180198813 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C2777363581 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C2780656832 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C2982795734 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C45983554 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C518677369 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C108827166 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C110875604 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C119599485 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C127413603 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C136764020 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C15744967 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C160735492 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C162324750 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C180198813 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C2777363581 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C2780656832 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C2982795734 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C41008148 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C45983554 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C50522688 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C512399662 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C518677369 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C71924100 @default.
• W2228517709 hasConceptScore W2228517709C77805123 @default.
• W2228517709 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2228517709 hasLocation W22285177091 @default.

• next