Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Medical Informatics

Date Submitted: Aug 5, 2020
Date Accepted: Aug 5, 2020

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Correction: Undergraduate Medical Students’ Search for Health Information Online: Explanatory Cross-Sectional Study

Loda T, Erschens R, Junne F, Stengel A, Zipfel S, Herrmann-Werner A

Correction: Undergraduate Medical Students’ Search for Health Information Online: Explanatory Cross-Sectional Study

JMIR Med Inform 2020;8(8):e23253

DOI: 10.2196/23253

PMID: 32780713

PMCID: 7448168

Correction: Undergraduate Medical Students’ Search for Health Information Online: Explanatory Cross-Sectional Study

  • Teresa Loda; 
  • Rebecca Erschens; 
  • Florian Junne; 
  • Andreas Stengel; 
  • Stephan Zipfel; 
  • Anne Herrmann-Werner

ABSTRACT

Background:

Previous research shows that being a “digital native” or growing up in a digital environment does not necessarily lead to increased digital competencies, such as digital health literacy or evaluation of webpage quality.

Objective:

This study showed how medical students searched for health information online, specifically the recommended testing for histamine intolerance, by comparing the use of various search engines (Google, Medisuch, and a website of the student’s choice) to find out more about search strategies in future health professionals. As Medisuch presents a qualitatively better search engine, we assumed that medical students using this search engine might find valid information faster on more reliable webpages, and might recommend the correct diagnostic steps for histamine intolerance to their patients more often than students using a generic search engine like Google.

Methods:

Medical students in their third year of study were asked to find the relevant diagnostic steps of histamine intolerance online. They were randomly assigned to use one search engine: Google, their personal choice, or Medisuch. Their process of seeking information online was video recorded.

Results:

In total, 140 medical students participated in this study. The total number of webpages found did not differ among the groups (P=.52). Students using Medisuch (P=.02) correctly identified the elimination diet as a relevant diagnostic step more frequently. The provocation test was reported by almost half of the students independent of the search engine used. In general, medical students commonly identified trustworthy webpages in all three groups (Google: 36/44, 82%; free choice: 31/36; 86%; and Medisuch: 35/45, 78%).

Conclusions:

The results indicate that medical students were able to find trustworthy health-related information online independent of the search engine used. Medical students that are digital natives seem to have proper internet skills and a knowledge of how to use them. They entered specific medical terms (evidence-based diagnostic steps) or names of reliable webpages (DocCheck) in the search engines to gain correct information. However, it remains to be seen if this behavior can be called true “digital literacy”.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Loda T, Erschens R, Junne F, Stengel A, Zipfel S, Herrmann-Werner A

Correction: Undergraduate Medical Students’ Search for Health Information Online: Explanatory Cross-Sectional Study

JMIR Med Inform 2020;8(8):e23253

DOI: 10.2196/23253

PMID: 32780713

PMCID: 7448168

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.