Search

BACKGROUND: The increasing amount of health information available on the internet makes it more important than ever to ensure that people can judge the accuracy of this information to prevent them from harm. It may be possible for platforms to set up protective mechanisms depending on the level of digital health literacy and thereby to decrease the possibility of harm by the misuse of health information. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create an instrument for digital health literacy assessment (DHLA) based on the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) to categorize participants by level of risk of misinterpreting health information into high-, medium-, and low-risk groups. METHODS: This study developed a DHLA and constructed an online health information bank with correct and incorrect answers. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to detect the cutoff value of DHLA, using 5 items randomly selected from the online health information bank, to classify users as being at low, medium, or high risk of misjudging health information. This provided information about the relationship between risk group for digital health literacy and accurate judgement of online health information. The study participants were Taiwanese residents aged 20 years and older. Snowball sampling was used, and internet questionnaires were anonymously completed by the participants. The reliability and validity of DHLA were examined. Logistic regression was used to analyze factors associated with risk groups from the DHLA. RESULTS: This study collected 1588 valid questionnaires. The online health information bank included 310 items of health information, which were classified as easy (147 items), moderate (122 items), or difficult (41 items) based on the difficulty of judging their accuracy. The internal consistency of DHLA was satisfactory (α=.87), and factor analysis of construct validity found three factors, accounting for 76.6% of the variance. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis found 106 people at high risk, 1368 at medium risk, and 114 at low risk of misinterpreting health information. Of the original grouped cases, 89.6% were correctly classified after discriminate analysis. Logistic regression analysis showed that participants with a high risk of misjudging health information had a lower education level, lower income, and poorer health. They also rarely or never browsed the internet. These differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The DHLA score could distinguish those at low, medium, and high risk of misjudging health information on the internet. Health information platforms on the internet could consider incorporating DHLA to set up a mechanism to protect users from misusing health information and avoid harming their health.

BACKGROUND: Interpreting health information and acquiring health knowledge have become more important with the accumulation of scientific medical knowledge and ideals of patient autonomy. Health literacy and its tremendous success as a concept can be considered an admission that not all is well in the distribution of health knowledge. The internet makes health information much more easily accessible than ever, but it introduces its own problems, of which health disinformation is a major one. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether objective and subjective health literacy are independent concepts and to test which of the two was associated more strongly with accurate judgments of the quality of a medical website and with behavioral intentions beneficial to health. METHODS: A survey on depression and its treatments was conducted online (n=362). The Newest Vital Sign was employed to measure objective, performance-based health literacy, and the eHealth Literacy Scale was used to measure subjective, perception-based health literacy. Correlations, comparisons of means, linear and binary logistic regression, and mediation models were used to determine the associations. RESULTS: Objective and subjective health literacy were weakly associated with one another (r=0.06, P=.24). High objective health literacy levels were associated with an inclination to behave in ways that are beneficial to one's own or others' health (Exp[B]=2.068, P=.004) and an ability to recognize low-quality online sources of health information (β=-.4698, P=.005). The recognition also improved participants' choice of treatment (β=-.3345, P<.001). Objective health literacy helped people to recognize misinformation on health websites and improved their judgment on their treatment for depression. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported, perception-based health literacy should be treated as a separate concept from objective, performance-based health literacy. Only objective health literacy appears to have the potential to prevent people from becoming victims of health disinformation.

Purpose The paper aims to evaluate the ways ChatGPT is going to disrupt tourism education and research. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper. Findings ChatGPT has the potential to revolutionize tourism education and research because it can do what students and researchers should do, namely, generate text (assignments and research papers). Universities will need to reevaluate their teaching and assessment strategies and incorporate generative language models in teaching. Publishers will need to be more receptive toward manuscripts that are partially generated by artificial intelligence. In the future, digital teachers and research assistants will take over many of the cognitive tasks of tourism educators and researchers. Originality/value To the authors’ best knowledge, this is one of the first academic papers that investigates the implications of ChatGPT to tourism education and research.

Nushin Rashidian, George Tsiveriotis,

The primary objective of this paper is to provide a review of research on argumentation in science education based on publications from 1998 to 2014 in three science education journals. In recent years, the teaching and learning argumentation (i.e. the coordination of evidence and theory to support or refute an explanatory conclusion, model or prediction) has emerged as a significant educational goal. Argumentation is a critically important discourse process in science and it should be taught and learned in the science classroom as part of scientific inquiry and literacy. Argumentation stresses the evidence-based justification of knowledge claims, and it underpins reasoning across STEM domains. Our aim in this study was to investigate how argumentation has been positioned within the publications of three top academic journals: Science Education , International Journal of Science Education , and Journal of Research in Science Teaching . A methodology for content analysis of the journals is described using quantitative and qualitative techniques. One of the contributions of our analysis is the illustration that researchers studying argumentation from a linguistic perspective have been emphasizing related concepts in different ways. While the emphasis has been on discourse and discussion across all journals, the related concepts of talk, conversation, dialogue and negotiation were observed to a lesser extent. Likewise, the fine-level analysis of the key epistemic concepts such as reasoning, evidence and inquiry indicates variation in coverage. The findings can provide evidence-based indicators for where more emphasis needs to be placed in future research on argumentation, and in particular they can provide guidelines for journals in soliciting articles that target underemphasized aspects of argumentation in science education.

BACKGROUND: As the quality of online health information remains questionable, there is a pressing need to understand how consumers evaluate this information. Past reviews identified content-, source-, and individual-related factors that influence consumer judgment in this area. However, systematic knowledge concerning the evaluation process, that is, why and how these factors influence the evaluation behavior, is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This review aims (1) to identify criteria (rules that reflect notions of value and worth) that consumers use to evaluate the quality of online health information and the indicators (properties of information objects to which criteria are applied to form judgments) they use to support the evaluation in order to achieve a better understanding of the process of information quality evaluation and (2) to explicate the relationship between indicators and criteria to provide clear guidelines for designers of consumer health information systems. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in seven digital reference databases including Medicine, Psychology, Communication, and Library and Information Science to identify empirical studies that report how consumers directly and explicitly describe their evaluation of online health information quality. Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. A qualitative content analysis was performed to identify quality evaluation criteria, indicators, and their relationships. RESULTS: We identified 25 criteria and 165 indicators. The most widely reported criteria used by consumers were trustworthiness, expertise, and objectivity. The indicators were related to source, content, and design. Among them, 114 were positive indicators (entailing positive quality judgments), 35 were negative indicators (entailing negative judgments), and 16 indicators had both positive and negative quality influence, depending on contextual factors (eg, source and individual differences) and criteria applied. The most widely reported indicators were site owners/sponsors; consensus among multiple sources; characteristics of writing and language; advertisements; content authorship; and interface design. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer evaluation of online health information is a complex cost-benefit analysis process that involves the use of a wide range of criteria and a much wider range of quality indicators. There are commonalities in the use of criteria across user groups and source types, but the differences are hard to ignore. Evidently, consumers' health information evaluation can be characterized as highly subjective and contextualized, and sometimes, misinformed. These findings invite more research into how different user groups evaluate different types of online sources and a personalized approach to educate users about evaluating online health information quality.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed a heavy burden on health care systems and governments. Health literacy (HL) and eHealth literacy (as measured by the eHealth Literacy Scale [eHEALS]) are recognized as strategic public health elements but they have been underestimated during the pandemic. HL, eHEALS score, practices, lifestyles, and the health status of health care workers (HCWs) play crucial roles in containing the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the psychometric properties of the eHEALS and examine associations of HL and eHEALS scores with adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures, lifestyle changes, and suspected COVID-19 symptoms among HCWs during lockdown. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 5209 HCWs from 15 hospitals and health centers across Vietnam from April 6 to April 19, 2020. Participants answered questions related to sociodemographics, HL, eHEALS, adherence to IPC procedures, behavior changes in eating, smoking, drinking, and physical activity, and suspected COVID-19 symptoms. Principal component analysis, correlation analysis, and bivariate and multivariate linear and logistic regression models were used to validate the eHEALS and examine associations. RESULTS: The eHEALS had a satisfactory construct validity with 8 items highly loaded on one component, with factor loadings ranked from 0.78 to 0.92 explaining 76.34% of variance; satisfactory criterion validity as correlated with HL (ρ=0.42); satisfactory convergent validity with high item-scale correlations (ρ=0.80-0.84); and high internal consistency (Cronbach α=.95). HL and eHEALS scores were significantly higher in men (unstandardized coefficient [B]=1.01, 95% CI 0.57-1.45, P<.001; B=0.72, 95% CI 0.43-1.00, P<.001), those with a better ability to pay for medication (B=1.65, 95% CI 1.25-2.05, P<.001; B=0.60, 95% CI 0.34-0.86, P<.001), doctors (B=1.29, 95% CI 0.73-1.84, P<.001; B 0.56, 95% CI 0.20-0.93, P=.003), and those with epidemic containment experience (B=1.96, 95% CI 1.56-2.37, P<.001; B=0.64, 95% CI 0.38-0.91, P<.001), as compared to their counterparts, respectively. HCWs with higher HL or eHEALS scores had better adherence to IPC procedures (B=0.13, 95% CI 0.10-0.15, P<.001; B=0.22, 95% CI 0.19-0.26, P<.001), had a higher likelihood of healthy eating (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P=.001; OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07, P=.002), were more physically active (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.03, P<.001; OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05, P<.001), and had a lower likelihood of suspected COVID-19 symptoms (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96-0.98, P<.001; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.98, P<.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The eHEALS is a valid and reliable survey tool. Gender, ability to pay for medication, profession, and epidemic containment experience were independent predictors of HL and eHEALS scores. HCWs with higher HL or eHEALS scores had better adherence to IPC procedures, healthier lifestyles, and a lower likelihood of suspected COVID-19 symptoms. Efforts to improve HCWs' HL and eHEALS scores can help to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and minimize its consequences.

OBJECTIVES: Socially assistive humanoid robots are considered a promising technology to tackle the challenges in health and social care posed by the growth of the ageing population. The purpose of our study was to explore the current evidence on barriers and enablers for the implementation of humanoid robots in health and social care. DESIGN: Systematic review of studies entailing hands-on interactions with a humanoid robot. SETTING: software, a standardised predefined grid, and a risk of bias and a quality assessment tool. PARTICIPANTS: Post-experimental data were collected and analysed for a total of 420 participants. Participants comprised: older adults (n=307) aged ≥60 years, with no or some degree of age-related cognitive impairment, residing either in residential care facilities or at their home; care home staff (n=106); and informal caregivers (n=7). PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Identification of enablers and barriers to the implementation of socially assistive humanoid robots in health and social care, and consequent insights and impact. Future developments to inform further research. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the eligibility criteria and were included. None of the selected studies had an experimental design; hence overall quality was low, with high risks of biases. Several studies had no comparator, no baseline, small samples, and self-reported measures only. Within this limited evidence base, the enablers found were enjoyment, usability, personalisation and familiarisation. Barriers were related to technical problems, to the robots' limited capabilities and the negative preconceptions towards the use of robots in healthcare. Factors which produced mixed results were the robot's human-like attributes, previous experience with technology and views of formal and informal carers. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence related to implementation factors of socially assistive humanoid robots for older adults is limited, mainly focusing on aspects at individual level, and exploring acceptance of this technology. Investigation of elements linked to the environment, organisation, societal and cultural milieu, policy and legal framework is necessary. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018092866.