MENÜ

Working Groups

Consumer Health Informatics (CHI)

Literature

At this place, literature can be collected in the context of the project group in order to more quickly grasp potentially interesting publications on certain topics.

Health Information Seeking

  • Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS et al. Health information on the internet: Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2002. (RAND Health reprint series).
  • Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res 2001; 16(6):671–92.
  • Feufel MA, Stahl SF. What do web-use skill differences imply for online health information searches? J. Med. Internet Res. 2012; 14(3):e87.
  • Jones R. Development of a Questionnaire and Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient eHealth Readiness and eHealth Inequalities. Med 2 0 2013; 2(2):e9.
  • McCray AT, Ide NC, Loane RR, Tse T. Strategies for supporting consumer health information seeking. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107(Pt 2):1152–6.
  • Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, Large S. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2011; 13(1):e20.
  • Sommerhalder K, Abraham A, Zufferey MC, Barth J, Abel T. Internet information and medical consultations: experiences from patients' and physicians' perspectives. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 77(2):266–71.
  • Zwijnenberg NC, Hendriks M, Damman OC, Bloemendal E, Wendel S, Jong JD de et al. Understanding and using comparative healthcare information; the effect of the amount of information and consumer characteristics and skills. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012; 12:101.
  • Bastian H. Health literacy and patient information: developing the methodology for a national evidence-based health website. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73(3):551–6.
  • Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA 2002; 287(21):2869–71.
  • Eysenbach G, Jadad AR. Evidence-based patient choice and consumer health informatics in the Internet age. J. Med. Internet Res. 2001; 3(2):E19.
  • 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(7337):573–7.

Health Literacy

  • Griebel L, Enwald H, Gilstad H, Pohl AL, Moreland J,  Sedlmayr M. eHealth literacy research—Quo vadis?. Informatics for Health and Social Care 2017, 1-16.
  • Halwas N, Griebel L, Huebner J. eHealth literacy, Internet and eHealth service usage: a survey among cancer patients and their relatives. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 2017; 143(11), 2291–2299.
  • Bastian H. Health literacy and patient information: developing the methodology for a national evidence-based health website. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73(3):551–6.
  • Chan CV, Matthews LA, Kaufman DR. A taxonomy characterizing complexity of consumer eHealth Literacy. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2009; 2009:86–90.
  • Feufel MA, Stahl SF. What do web-use skill differences imply for online health information searches? J. Med. Internet Res. 2012; 14(3):e87.
  • Nielsen-Bohlman L, editor. Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: National Acad. Press; 2004.
  • Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J. Med. Internet Res. 2006; 8(4):e27.
  • Zwijnenberg NC, Hendriks M, Damman OC, Bloemendal E, Wendel S, Jong JD de et al. Understanding and using comparative healthcare information; the effect of the amount of information and consumer characteristics and skills. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012; 12:101.

Readability Tests / Consumer Vocabulary

  • Chall JS, Dale E. Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, Mass.: Brookline Books; 1995.
  • Dubay WH. The Principles of Readability: Impact Information; 2004. Available from: URL:http://www.impact-information.com/.
  • Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav 2006; 33(3):352–73.
  • Gemoets D, Rosemblat G, Tse T, Logan R. Assessing readability of consumer health information: an exploratory study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 107(Pt 2):869–73.
  • Kandula S, Zeng-Treitler Q. Creating a gold standard for the readability measurement of health texts. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008:353–7.
  • Kim H, Goryachev S, Rosemblat G, Browne A, Keselman A, Zeng-Treitler Q. Beyond surface characteristics: a new health text-specific readability measurement. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007:418–22.
  • Liu X, Croft WB, Oh P, Hart D. Automatic recognition of reading levels from user queries. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval; 2004. p. 548–9 .
  • Miller T, Leroy G, Chatterjee S, Fan J, Thoms B, editors. A Classifier to Evaluate Language Specificity of Medical Documents [System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on]; 2007.
  • Ownby RL. Influence of vocabulary and sentence complexity and passive voice on the readability of consumer-oriented mental health information on the Internet. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005:585–9.
  • Rosemblat G, Logan R, Tse T, Graham L. Text features and readability: Expert evaluation of consumer health text. In: Mednet 2006: 11th World Congress on Internet in Medicine the Society for Internet in Medicine; 2006 .
  • Yunli Wang, editor. Automatic Recognition of Text Difficulty from Consumers Health Information [Computer-Based Medical Systems, 2006. CBMS 2006. 19th IEEE International Symposium on]; 2006.
  • Zeng QT, Tse T. Exploring and developing consumer health vocabularies. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13(1):24–9.
  • Zeng-Treitler Q, Goryachev S, Tse T, Keselman A, Boxwala A. Estimating consumer familiarity with health terminology: a context-based approach. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15(3):349–56.

To top