Volume 25, Issue 1 (3-2022)
jha 2022, 25(1): 47-56 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mehrabi D. Identifying and Evaluating sources of colorectal cancer information among referrals to gastroenterologists. jha 2022; 25 (1) :47-56
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3929-en.html
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3929-en.html
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Cultural Studies and Communication, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran. , davood.mehrabi@yahoo.com
Abstract: (1655 Views)
Introduction: Due to the development of new technologies, health information sources have become more diverse. Despite these, there is a limited knowledge about the main sources of cancer information, their usefulness and credibility, and the determinants of source credibility. This study aims to identify and evaluate the main information sources of colorectal cancer (CRC), their usefulness, and credibility of the sources.
Methods: This was an applied cross-sectional research performed descriptively in Tehran, 2019. A sample of 386 outpatients who visited gastroenterologists were selcted using non-probability homogeneous purposive sampling. Each respondent filled a self-administered questionnaire designed based on study objectives. Data analysis was performed by descriptive and inferential statistics using SPSS software version 21.
Results: Out of 10 sources, Internet (45%), physicians (36.5%), and television (8.1%) were introduced as the main sources of information, respectively. Among the first three sources of information, physicians were perceived as the provider of the most useful information (3.8 out of 5), followed by television (3.5) and friends (3.5). In terms of source credibility, among three sources that received the most responses, physicians ranked first, followed by the Internet and television.
Conclusion: The findings of this study show that the Internet, physicians, and television are the three main sources of CRC information, respectively. Despite the rapid development of new communication technologies, in healthcare setting, interpersonal communication is still more credible than new and mainstream media. The potential of new media and the credibility of professionals provide a proper path to achive health goals.
Methods: This was an applied cross-sectional research performed descriptively in Tehran, 2019. A sample of 386 outpatients who visited gastroenterologists were selcted using non-probability homogeneous purposive sampling. Each respondent filled a self-administered questionnaire designed based on study objectives. Data analysis was performed by descriptive and inferential statistics using SPSS software version 21.
Results: Out of 10 sources, Internet (45%), physicians (36.5%), and television (8.1%) were introduced as the main sources of information, respectively. Among the first three sources of information, physicians were perceived as the provider of the most useful information (3.8 out of 5), followed by television (3.5) and friends (3.5). In terms of source credibility, among three sources that received the most responses, physicians ranked first, followed by the Internet and television.
Conclusion: The findings of this study show that the Internet, physicians, and television are the three main sources of CRC information, respectively. Despite the rapid development of new communication technologies, in healthcare setting, interpersonal communication is still more credible than new and mainstream media. The potential of new media and the credibility of professionals provide a proper path to achive health goals.
Keywords: Colon Cancer, Sources of Information Gathering, Source Credibility, New Media, Interpersonal Relationships
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Health Information Management
Received: 2022/01/4 | Accepted: 2022/03/16 | Published: 2022/07/5
Received: 2022/01/4 | Accepted: 2022/03/16 | Published: 2022/07/5
References
1. Sheikhtaheri A, Salmani H, Nahvijou A. Requirements of self-management applications for patients with colorectal cancer. Journal of Health Administration. 2021;24(1):84-97. [In Persian] [DOI:10.52547/jha.24.1.84]
2. Brar J, Ferdous M, Abedin T, Turin TC. Online information for colorectal cancer screening: A content analysis of youtube videos. J Canc Educ. 2021 Aug;36(4):826-31. [DOI:10.1007/s13187-020-01710-8]
3. Chang YS, Zhang Y, Gwizdka J. The effects of information source and eHealth literacy on consumer health information credibility evaluation behavior. Comput Hum Behav. 2021;115. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106629]
4. Mahmoudi H, Taheri A. Relation between information literacy and health literacy of students in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Human Information Interaction. 2015;2(2):31-41. [In Persian]
5. Bidouei F, Abdolhosseini S, Jafarzadeh N, Izanloo A, Ghaffarzadehgan K, Abdolhosseini A, et al. Knowledge and perception toward colorectal cancer screening in east of Iran. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(1):11-5. [DOI:10.15171/ijhpm.2014.48]
6. Khani Jeihooni A, Kashfi M, Shokri A, Kashfi H, Karimi Sh. Investigating factors associated with FOBT screening for colorectal cancer based on the components of health belief model and social support. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017;18(8):2163-9.
7. Ghobadi Dashdebi K, Noroozi A, Tahmasebi R. Factors predicting fecal occult blood testing among residents of bushehr, Iran, based on the health belief model. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17:17-22. [DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.S3.17]
8. Kington RS, Arnesen S, Chou WYS, Curry SJ, Lazer D, Villarruel AM. Identifying credible sources of health information in social media: Principles and attributes. NAM Perspect. 2021 Jul:1-37. [DOI:10.31478/202107a]
9. Roth-Cohen O, Levy S, Zigdon A. The mediated role of credibility on information sources and patient awareness toward patient rights. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):1-15. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph18168628]
10. Kim SU, Syn SY. Credibility and usefulness of health information on facebook: A survey study with U.S. college students. Inform Res. 2016;21(4).
11. Sparks L, Villagran M. Patient and providerinteraction: A global health communication perspective. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2010.
12. Wright KB, Sparks L, O'Hair HD. Health communication in the 21st century. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
13. Christou A, Thompson SC. colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intention among indigenous western australians. BMC Publ Health. 2012 Jul;12:1-16. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-528]
14. Oh KM, Kreps GL, Jun J. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, beliefs, and practices of korean americans. Am J Health Behav. 2013;37(3):381-94. [DOI:10.5993/AJHB.37.3.11]
15. McQueen A, Vernon SW, Meissner HI, Rakowski W. Risk perceptions and worry about cancer: Does gender make a difference? J Health Commun. 2008;13(1):56-79. [DOI:10.1080/10810730701807076]
16. Reeder AI. "It's a small price to pay for life": Faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening for colorectal can cer, perceived barriers and facilitators. N Z Med J. 2011;124(1331):1-11.
17. Teo CH, Ng CJ, White A. What do men want from a health screening mobile app? A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):1-16. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0169435]
18. Agide FD, Sadeghi R, Garmaroudi Gh, Tigabu BM. A systematic review of health promotion interventions to increase breast cancer screening uptake: From the last 12 years. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(6):1149-55. [DOI:10.1093/eurpub/ckx231]
19. Dolatkhah R, Somi MH, Jabbarpour Bonyadi M, Asvadi Kermani I, Farassati F, Dastgiri S. Colorectal cancer in Iran: Molecular epidemiology and screening strategies. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;2015:1-10. [DOI:10.1155/2015/643020]
20. Mirzaei Ahranjani H, Gholipour A, Minavand MG, Mansoorian H. Designing media credibility assessment model: Case study, Iran Tv. News Program. Journal of Public Administration. 2012;4(9):99-116. [In Persian]
21. Li R, Suh A. Factors influencing information credibility on social media platforms: Evidence from facebook pages. Procedia Computer Science. 2015; 72:314-28. [DOI:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.146]
22. Pan Y, Chieng CY, Haris AAH, Ang SY. Assessment of the level of knowledge of colorectal cancer among public at outpatient clinics in serdang hospital: A survey based study. Med J Malaysia. 2017;72(6):338-44.
23. Alami A, Moshki M, Alimardani A. Development and validation of theory of planned behavior questionnaire for exclusive breastfeeding. Journal of Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences. 2014;2(4):45-53. [In Persian]
24. Peng Y, Yin P, Deng Z, Wang R. Patient-physician interaction and trust in online health community: The role of perceived usefulness of health information and services. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(1):1-13. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph17010139]
25. Asemi A, BasirianJahromi R, SeyyedHosseini S. The rate of attention to iranian papers published on common cancers in social networks: An altmetrics approach. Journal of Health Administration. 2018;21(73):72-88. [In Persian]
26. You YN, Hardiman KM, Bafford A, Poylin V, Francone TD, Davis K, et al. The american society of colon and rectal surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the management of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(9):1191-222. [DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000001762]
27. Sbaffi L, Rowley J. Trust and credibility in web-based health information: A review and agenda for future research. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(6):1-17. [DOI:10.2196/jmir.7579]
28. Latifi M, Davaridolatabadi N, Shahi M. The effect of virtual social networks on users' self-care of covid-19: A structural equation modeling. Journal of Health Administration. 2021;24(1):54-67. [In Persian] [DOI:10.52547/jha.24.1.54]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Site Keywords
Health, Administration, Scientific Article, Iran University of Medical Sciences,
