Community desires for an online health information strategy
Jared M. Dart A C and Cindy Gallois BA The Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Queensland, Ipswich, QLD 4305, Australia.
B Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia. Email: c.gallois@uq.edu.au
C Corresponding author. Email: jared.dart@uq.edu.au
Australian Health Review 34(4) 467-476 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH08719
Submitted: 6 November 2008 Accepted: 18 February 2010 Published: 25 November 2010
Abstract
Objective. To determine whether the community’s attitudes to components of a community eHealth strategy differ across three different socioeconomic groups.
Design. A survey questionnaire was designed and implemented across three different communities.
Participants and setting. Paper-based surveys were left in community organisations and local health practices in a low socioeconomic community on the outskirts of Ipswich, Queensland (n = 262), a mid-high socioeconomic community in the western suburbs of Brisbane (n = 256) and at a local university (n = 200).
Main outcome measures. Ascribed importance and comfort with proposed components of a community eHealth strategy.
Results. A community-oriented health website was perceived as useful in getting access to relevant health information. Those who were most comfortable with accessing online health information were those who were: experienced, had home internet access and were frequent internet users. The most important types of health information for the website were: information about the treatment of conditions, how to manage a chronic illness, how to stay healthy and patient clinical pathways. The low socioeconomic community had different information priorities – all categories were considered more important, particularly information about how the public system operates, local health support groups, and the roles of health professionals.
Conclusions. Different communities have different information demands but there is a strong demand for information which empowers community members to take control of their own health and become active participants in their health care. Tools such as a community health portal and patient clinical pathways should become more available.
What is known about the topic? There is existing literature discussing the impact of the internet and other eHealth strategies, in terms of the perceptions and preferences of different parts of the community. Many previous researchers have pointed to deficiencies in health literacy as a function of socioeconomic status and their negative consequences for health outcomes and participation in health care. The internet has been recommended as a useful way to increase health literacy, if users’ knowledge and skills and preferences are adequately assessed and catered for.
What does this paper add? This paper adds detail to what is known about the preferences of various parts of the community in terms of eHealth and online health information. It adds Australian data to our understanding of the role of the internet, and of community-based approaches to eHealth. Our results underscore the importance of understanding differences as a function of socioeconomic status, as well as knowledge of basic internet skills, health literacy, and online experience in determining patients’ preferences for and use of these means of accessing health information.
What are the implications for practitioners? In the context of the growing burden of chronic disease and the importance of lifestyle factors and risk factor modification, this research suggests that a concerted online health information approach is valuable and timely. In particular, the paper provides data as to different communities’ opinions of potential components of an online health information strategy.
References
[1] Dart J. The internet as a source of health information in three disparate communities. Aust Health Rev 2008; 32 559–69.| The internet as a source of health information in three disparate communities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18666885PubMed |
[2] Dart J, Gallois C, Yellowlees P. Community health information sources – a survey in three disparate communities. Aust Health Rev 2008; 32 186–96.
| Community health information sources – a survey in three disparate communities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18241163PubMed |
[3] Donnelly LS, Shaw RL, van den Akker OBA. eHealth as a challenge to ‘expert’ power: a focus group study of internet use for health information and management. J R Soc Med 2008; 101 501–6.
| eHealth as a challenge to ‘expert’ power: a focus group study of internet use for health information and management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18840866PubMed |
[4] Wolf MS, Davis TC, Parker RM. The emerging field of health literacy research. Am J Health Behav 2007; 31 S3–5.
| 17931134PubMed |
[5] Nutbeam D. The evolving concept of health literacy. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67 2072–8.
| The evolving concept of health literacy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18952344PubMed |
[6] Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS. The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. Am J Health Behav 2007; 31 S19–26.
| 17931132PubMed |
[7] Ishikawa H, Yano E. Patient health literacy and participation in the health-care process. Health Expect 2008; 11 113–22.
| Patient health literacy and participation in the health-care process.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18494956PubMed |
[8] Entwistle V, Williams B. Health literacy: the need to consider images as well as words. Health Expect 2008; 11 99–101.
| Health literacy: the need to consider images as well as words.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18494954PubMed |
[9] Schwartzberg JG, Cowett A, VanGeest J, Wolf MS. Communication techniques for patients with low health literacy: a survey of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. Am J Health Behav 2007; 31 S96–104.
| 17931143PubMed |
[10] Bodie GD, Dutta MJ. Understanding health literacy for strategic health marketing: eHealth literacy, health disparities, and the digital divide. Health Mark Q 2008; 25 175–203.
| Understanding health literacy for strategic health marketing: eHealth literacy, health disparities, and the digital divide.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18935884PubMed |
[11] Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale. J Med Internet Res 2006; 8 e27
| eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17213046PubMed |
[12] Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res 2006; 8 e9
| eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16867972PubMed |
[13] Smith SK, Trevena L, Nutbeam D, Barratt A, McCaffery KJ. Information needs and preferences of low and high literacy consumers for decisions about colorectal cancer screening: utilizing a linguistic model. Health Expect 2008; 11 123–36.
| Information needs and preferences of low and high literacy consumers for decisions about colorectal cancer screening: utilizing a linguistic model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18494957PubMed |
[14] Freedman DA, Bess KD, Tucker HA, Boyd DL, Tuchman AM, Wallston DA. Public health literacy defined. Am J Prev Med 2009; 36 446–51.
| Public health literacy defined.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19362698PubMed |
[15] Lurie N, Parker R. Moving health literacy from the individual to the community. Am J Health Behav 2007; 31 S6–7.
| 17931138PubMed |
