How do healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information? A qualitative study using cognitive interviews

Olga C. Damman, Michelle Hendriks, Jany Rademakers, Diana M. J. Delnoij, Peter P. Groenewegen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background. To date, online public healthcare reports have not been effectively used by consumers. Therefore, we qualitatively examined how healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information on the Internet. Methods. Using semi-structured cognitive interviews, interviewees (n = 20) were asked to think aloud and answer questions, as they were prompted with three Dutch web pages providing comparative healthcare information. Results. We identified twelve themes from consumers' thoughts and evaluations. These themes were categorized under four important areas of interest: (1) a response to the design; (2) a response to the information content; (3) the use of the information, and (4) the purpose of the information. Conclusion. Several barriers to an effective use of comparative healthcare information were identified, such as too much information and the ambiguity of terms presented on websites. Particularly important for future research is the question of how comparative healthcare information can be integrated with alternative information, such as patient reviews on the Internet. Furthermore, the readability of quality of care concepts is an issue that needs further attention, both from websites and communication experts. © 2009 Damman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Original languageEnglish
Article number423
JournalBMC Public Health
Volume9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes

Cite this

Damman, Olga C. ; Hendriks, Michelle ; Rademakers, Jany ; Delnoij, Diana M. J. ; Groenewegen, Peter P. / How do healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information? A qualitative study using cognitive interviews. In: BMC Public Health. 2009 ; Vol. 9.
@article{0abe8ade32a34794b6e7b4a65aace31f,
title = "How do healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information? A qualitative study using cognitive interviews",
abstract = "Background. To date, online public healthcare reports have not been effectively used by consumers. Therefore, we qualitatively examined how healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information on the Internet. Methods. Using semi-structured cognitive interviews, interviewees (n = 20) were asked to think aloud and answer questions, as they were prompted with three Dutch web pages providing comparative healthcare information. Results. We identified twelve themes from consumers' thoughts and evaluations. These themes were categorized under four important areas of interest: (1) a response to the design; (2) a response to the information content; (3) the use of the information, and (4) the purpose of the information. Conclusion. Several barriers to an effective use of comparative healthcare information were identified, such as too much information and the ambiguity of terms presented on websites. Particularly important for future research is the question of how comparative healthcare information can be integrated with alternative information, such as patient reviews on the Internet. Furthermore, the readability of quality of care concepts is an issue that needs further attention, both from websites and communication experts. {\circledC} 2009 Damman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.",
author = "Damman, {Olga C.} and Michelle Hendriks and Jany Rademakers and Delnoij, {Diana M. J.} and Groenewegen, {Peter P.}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2458-9-423",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "BMC Public Health",
issn = "1471-2458",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

How do healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information? A qualitative study using cognitive interviews. / Damman, Olga C.; Hendriks, Michelle; Rademakers, Jany; Delnoij, Diana M. J.; Groenewegen, Peter P.

In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 9, 423, 2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - How do healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information? A qualitative study using cognitive interviews

AU - Damman, Olga C.

AU - Hendriks, Michelle

AU - Rademakers, Jany

AU - Delnoij, Diana M. J.

AU - Groenewegen, Peter P.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Background. To date, online public healthcare reports have not been effectively used by consumers. Therefore, we qualitatively examined how healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information on the Internet. Methods. Using semi-structured cognitive interviews, interviewees (n = 20) were asked to think aloud and answer questions, as they were prompted with three Dutch web pages providing comparative healthcare information. Results. We identified twelve themes from consumers' thoughts and evaluations. These themes were categorized under four important areas of interest: (1) a response to the design; (2) a response to the information content; (3) the use of the information, and (4) the purpose of the information. Conclusion. Several barriers to an effective use of comparative healthcare information were identified, such as too much information and the ambiguity of terms presented on websites. Particularly important for future research is the question of how comparative healthcare information can be integrated with alternative information, such as patient reviews on the Internet. Furthermore, the readability of quality of care concepts is an issue that needs further attention, both from websites and communication experts. © 2009 Damman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

AB - Background. To date, online public healthcare reports have not been effectively used by consumers. Therefore, we qualitatively examined how healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information on the Internet. Methods. Using semi-structured cognitive interviews, interviewees (n = 20) were asked to think aloud and answer questions, as they were prompted with three Dutch web pages providing comparative healthcare information. Results. We identified twelve themes from consumers' thoughts and evaluations. These themes were categorized under four important areas of interest: (1) a response to the design; (2) a response to the information content; (3) the use of the information, and (4) the purpose of the information. Conclusion. Several barriers to an effective use of comparative healthcare information were identified, such as too much information and the ambiguity of terms presented on websites. Particularly important for future research is the question of how comparative healthcare information can be integrated with alternative information, such as patient reviews on the Internet. Furthermore, the readability of quality of care concepts is an issue that needs further attention, both from websites and communication experts. © 2009 Damman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=72449175212&origin=inward

UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19930564

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2458-9-423

DO - 10.1186/1471-2458-9-423

M3 - Article

VL - 9

JO - BMC Public Health

JF - BMC Public Health

SN - 1471-2458

M1 - 423

ER -