Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0265537 = product of:
  0.1062148 = sum of:
    0.06901162 = weight(_text_:studies in 1924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06901162 = score(doc=1924,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.43643627 = fieldWeight in 1924, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1924)
    0.037203178 = product of:
      0.074406356 = sum of:
        0.074406356 = weight(_text_:area in 1924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074406356 = score(doc=1924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38107216 = fieldWeight in 1924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

FRBR user research has been the least addressed area in FRBR research and development. This article addresses the research gap in evaluating and designing catalogs based on FRBR user research. It draws from three user studies concerning FRBR-based catalogs: (1) user evaluation of three FRBR-based catalogs, (2) user participatory design of a prototype catalog based on the FRBR model, and (3) user evaluation of the resulting FRBR prototype catalog. The major findings from the user studies are highlighted and discussed for future development of FRBR-based catalogs that support various user tasks.

0.0061617517 = product of:
  0.049294014 = sum of:
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 2218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=2218,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 2218, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2218)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The quality of online health information for consumers has been a critical issue that concerns all stakeholders in healthcare. To gain an understanding of how quality is evaluated, this systematic review examined 165 articles in which researchers evaluated the quality of consumer-oriented health information on the web against predefined criteria. It was found that studies typically evaluated quality in relation to the substance and formality of content, as well as to the design of technological platforms. Attention to design, particularly interactivity, privacy, and social and cultural appropriateness is on the rise, which suggests the permeation of a user-centered perspective into the evaluation of health information systems, and a growing recognition of the need to study these systems from a social-technical perspective. Researchers used many preexisting instruments to facilitate evaluation of the formality of content; however, only a few were used in multiple studies, and their validity was questioned. The quality of content (i.e., accuracy and completeness) was always evaluated using proprietary instruments constructed based on medical guidelines or textbooks. The evaluation results revealed that the quality of health information varied across medical domains and across websites, and that the overall quality remained problematic. Future research is needed to examine the quality of user-generated content and to explore opportunities offered by emerging new media that can facilitate the consumer evaluation of health information.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 953, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=953)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Designing effective consumer health information systems requires deep understanding of the context in which the systems are being used. However, due to the elusive nature of the concept of context, few studies have made it a focus of examination. To fill this gap, we studied the context of consumer health information searching by analyzing questions posted on a social question and answer site: Yahoo! Answers. Based on the analysis, a model of context was developed. The model consists of 5 layers: demographic, cognitive, affective, situational, and social and environmental. The demographic layer contains demographic factors of the person of concern; the cognitive layer contains factors related to the current search task (specifically, topics of interest and information goals) and users' cognitive ability to articulate their needs. The affective layer contains different affective motivations and intentions behind the search. The situational layer contains users' perceptions of the current health condition and where the person is in the illness trajectory. The social and environmental layer contains users' social roles, social norms, and various information channels. Several novel system functions, including faceted search and layered presentation of results, are proposed based on the model to help contextualize and improve users' interactions with health information systems.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=1252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1252, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1252)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

A systematic understanding of factors and criteria that affect consumers' selection of sources for health information is necessary for the design of effective health information services and information systems. However, current studies have overly focused on source attributes as indicators for 2 criteria, source quality and accessibility, and overlooked the role of other factors and criteria that help determine source selection. To fill this gap, guided by decision-making theories and the cognitive perspective to information search, we interviewed 30 participants about their reasons for using a wide range of sources for health information. Additionally, we asked each of them to report a critical incident in which sources were selected to fulfill a specific information need. Based on the analysis of the transcripts, 5 categories of factors were identified as influential to source selection: source-related factors, user-related factors, user-source relationships, characteristics of the problematic situation, and social influences. In addition, about a dozen criteria that mediate the influence of the factors on source-selection decisions were identified, including accessibility, quality, usability, interactivity, relevance, usefulness, familiarity, affection, anonymity, and appropriateness. These results significantly expanded the current understanding of the nature of costs and benefits involved in source-selection decisions, and strongly indicated that a personalized approach is needed for information services and information systems to provide effective access to health information sources for consumers.

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 1261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=1261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1261)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Web search engines are important gateways for users to access health information. This study explored whether a search interface based on the Bing API and enabled by Scatter/Gather, a well-known document-clustering technique, can improve health information searches. Forty participants without medical backgrounds were randomly assigned to two interfaces: a baseline interface that resembles typical web search engines and a Scatter/Gather interface. Both groups performed two lookup and two exploratory health-related tasks. It was found that the baseline group was more likely to rephrase queries and less likely to access general-purpose sites than the Scatter/Gather group when completing exploratory tasks. Otherwise, the two groups did not differ in behavior and task performance, with participants in the Scatter/Gather group largely overlooking the features (key words, clusters, and the recluster function) designed to facilitate the exploration of semantic relationships between information objects, a potentially useful means for users in the rather unfamiliar domain of health. The results suggest a strong effect of users' mental models of search on their use of search interfaces and a high cognitive cost associated with using the Scatter/Gather features. It follows that novel features of a search interface should not only be compatible with users' mental models but also provide sufficient affordance to inform users of how they can be used. Compared with the interface, tasks showed more significant impacts on search behavior. In future studies, more effort should be devoted to identify salient features of health-related information needs.

0.0020133762 = product of:
  0.01610701 = sum of:
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.