J Korean Med Sci.  2017 Jul;32(7):1077-1082. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.7.1077.

What Factors Impact Consumer Perception of the Effectiveness of Health Information Sites? An Investigation of the Korean National Health Information Portal

• Choung JT
• Lee YS
• Jo HS
• Shim M
• Lee HJ
• Jung SM

• KMID: 2379600
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.7.1077

Abstract

Lay public's concerns around health and health information are increasing. In response, governments and government agencies are establishing websites to address such concerns and improve health literacy by providing better access to validated health information. Since 2011, the Korean government has constructed the National Health Information Portal (NHIP) website run in collaboration with the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS). This study therefore aimed to 1) examine consumer use of NHIP, with respect to the usage patterns, evaluation on health information provided, and perceived effectiveness of the site; and 2) identify factors that may impact perceived effectiveness of the site. An online survey was conducted with 164 NHIP users, recruited through a popup window on the main screen of the portal website from October to November 2015. The significant predicting factors supported by the data include the relevance of health information on the site, the usefulness of information in making health decisions, and the effective visualization of information. These factors can inform future efforts to design more effective health information websites, possibly based on metadata systems, to further advance the lay public's information seeking and health literacy.

Keyword

Metadata; Health Literacy; Health Information; Consumer; Internet

MeSH Terms

Cooperative Behavior
Government Agencies
Health Literacy
Internet

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Result of awareness of NHIP. NHIP = National Health Information Portal.

Reference

1. Jung SM, Jo HS, Oh HW. Internal motivation, perceived health competency, and health literacy in primary and secondary cancer prevention. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016; 17:5127–5132.

2. Jang H, Sim J, Kim Y. Sources of health information by customer’s characteristics. J Korean Soc Med Inform. 2004; 10:415–427.

3. Glenton C, Paulsen EJ, Oxman AD. Portals to Wonderland: health portals lead to confusing information about the effects of health care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005; 5:7–14.

4. Ahn J, Lim IS. The significant role of the National Health Information Portal, http://health.mw.go.kr. J Korean Med Assoc. 2011; 54:957–960.

5. Bartlett JE, Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC. Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Inf Technol Learn Perform J. 2001; 19:43–50.

6. Kim MJ, Kang NM, Kim SW, Rhyu SW, Chang H, Hong SK, Kim J. Development of an evaluation checklist for Internet health/disease information. J Korean Soc Med Inform. 2006; 12:283–292.

7. Park HJ, Yang HK, Shin DW, Kim YY, Kim YA, Yun YH, Nam BH, Bhatia S, Park BK, Ghim TT, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Korean version of the minneapolis-manchester quality of life instrument-adolescent form. J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28:1788–1795.

8. Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974; 39:31–36.

9. Han DH, Lee JJ, Moon DS, Cha MJ, Kim MA, Min S, Yang JH, Lee EJ, Yoo SK, Chung US. Korean version of inventory of complicated grief scale: psychometric properties in Korean adolescents. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31:114–119.

10. Park S, Lee S. Exploring categories of health information users on the basis of illness attitude and health information seeking behavior on the Internet. Korean J Journal Commun Stud. 2011; 55:105–133.

11. Yu HJ, An CH, Hwang SY. Interactivity represented on health-related websites: a content analysis of Korean health information websites. Korean J Advert Public Relat. 2011; 13:65–104.

12. Nam J, Park T. A study on structural relationship among perceived interactivity and user related variables in health information websites. J Korean Soc Inf Manage. 2014; 31:103–131.

13. Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ. 2002; 324:573–577.

14. Health on the Net Foundation (CH). Health on the Net Foundation (HON) survey 2015. Your usage of Internet for health/medical purposes [Internet]. accessed on 17 November 2016. Available at http://www.hon.ch/Survey/Survey2005/raw_data.html.

15. Childs S. Developing health website quality assessment guidelines for the voluntary sector: outcomes from the judge project. Health Info Libr J. 2004; 21:Suppl 2. 14–26.

16. Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA. 1998; 279:611–614.

17. Chung YC, Park HA. Development of a health information evaluation system on the Internet. J Korean Soc Med Inform. 2000; 6:53–66.

18. Lee YS, Ju YH, Im MK. O SW. The analysis of health promotion information on the Internet. J Korean Soc Med Inform. 2001; 7:11–20.

19. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002; 287:2691–2700.

20. Ko ES, Lee KH. Pre-service teachers’ understanding of statistical sampling. J Educ Res Math. 2011; 21:17–32.