Explore the vast range of titles available.

This book focuses on a range of geospatial applications for environmental health research, including environmental justice issues, environmental health disparities, air and water contamination, and infectious diseases. Environmental health research is at an exciting point in its use of geotechnologies, and many researchers are working on innovative approaches. This book is a timely scholarly contribution in updating the key concepts and applications of using GIS and other geospatial methods for environmental health research. Each chapter contains original research which utilizes a geotechnical tool (Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote sensing, GPS, etc.) to address an environmental health problem. The book is divided into three sections organized around the following themes: issues in GIS and environmental health research; using GIS to assess environmental health impacts; and, geospatial methods for environmental health. Representing diverse case studies and geospatial methods, the book is likely to be of interest to researchers, practitioners and students across the geographic and environmental health sciences.

As the quality of online health information remains questionable, there is a pressing need to understand how consumers evaluate this information. Past reviews identified content-, source-, and individual-related factors that influence consumer judgment in this area. However, systematic knowledge concerning the evaluation process, that is, why and how these factors influence the evaluation behavior, is lacking. This review aims (1) to identify criteria (rules that reflect notions of value and worth) that consumers use to evaluate the quality of online health information and the indicators (properties of information objects to which criteria are applied to form judgments) they use to support the evaluation in order to achieve a better understanding of the process of information quality evaluation and (2) to explicate the relationship between indicators and criteria to provide clear guidelines for designers of consumer health information systems. A systematic literature search was performed in seven digital reference databases including Medicine, Psychology, Communication, and Library and Information Science to identify empirical studies that report how consumers directly and explicitly describe their evaluation of online health information quality. Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. A qualitative content analysis was performed to identify quality evaluation criteria, indicators, and their relationships. We identified 25 criteria and 165 indicators. The most widely reported criteria used by consumers were trustworthiness, expertise, and objectivity. The indicators were related to source, content, and design. Among them, 114 were positive indicators (entailing positive quality judgments), 35 were negative indicators (entailing negative judgments), and 16 indicators had both positive and negative quality influence, depending on contextual factors (eg, source and individual differences) and criteria applied. The most widely reported indicators were site owners/sponsors; consensus among multiple sources; characteristics of writing and language; advertisements; content authorship; and interface design. Consumer evaluation of online health information is a complex cost-benefit analysis process that involves the use of a wide range of criteria and a much wider range of quality indicators. There are commonalities in the use of criteria across user groups and source types, but the differences are hard to ignore. Evidently, consumers' health information evaluation can be characterized as highly subjective and contextualized, and sometimes, misinformed. These findings invite more research into how different user groups evaluate different types of online sources and a personalized approach to educate users about evaluating online health information quality.

The ever-growing amount of health information available on the web is increasing the demand for tools providing personalized and actionable health information. Such tools include symptom checkers that provide users with a potential diagnosis after responding to a set of probes about their symptoms. Although the potential for their utility is great, little is known about such tools’ actual use and effects. We aimed to understand who uses a web-based artificial intelligence–powered symptom checker and its purposes, how they evaluate the experience of the web-based interview and quality of the information, what they intend to do with the recommendation, and predictors of future use. Cross-sectional survey of web-based health information seekers following the completion of a symptom checker visit (N=2437). Measures of comprehensibility, confidence, usefulness, health-related anxiety, empowerment, and intention to use in the future were assessed. ANOVAs and the Wilcoxon rank sum test examined mean outcome differences in racial, ethnic, and sex groups. The relationship between perceptions of the symptom checker and intention to follow recommended actions was assessed using multilevel logistic regression. Buoy users were well-educated (1384/1704, 81.22% college or higher), primarily White (1227/1693, 72.47%), and female (2069/2437, 84.89%). Most had insurance (1449/1630, 88.89%), a regular health care provider (1307/1709, 76.48%), and reported good health (1000/1703, 58.72%). Three types of symptoms—pain (855/2437, 35.08%), gynecological issues (293/2437, 12.02%), and masses or lumps (204/2437, 8.37%)—accounted for almost half (1352/2437, 55.48%) of site visits. Buoy’s top three primary recommendations split across less-serious triage categories: primary care physician in 2 weeks (754/2141, 35.22%), self-treatment (452/2141, 21.11%), and primary care in 1 to 2 days (373/2141, 17.42%). Common diagnoses were musculoskeletal (303/2437, 12.43%), gynecological (304/2437, 12.47%) and skin conditions (297/2437, 12.19%), and infectious diseases (300/2437, 12.31%). Users generally reported high confidence in Buoy, found it useful and easy to understand, and said that Buoy made them feel less anxious and more empowered to seek medical help. Users for whom Buoy recommended “Waiting/Watching” or “Self-Treatment” had strongest intentions to comply, whereas those advised to seek primary care had weaker intentions. Compared with White users, Latino and Black users had significantly more confidence in Buoy (P<.05), and the former also found it significantly more useful (P<.05). Latino (odds ratio 1.96, 95% CI 1.22-3.25) and Black (odds ratio 2.37, 95% CI 1.57-3.66) users also had stronger intentions to discuss recommendations with a provider than White users.

The abundance of health information available online provides consumers with greater access to information pertinent to the management of health conditions. This is particularly important given an increasing drive for consumer-focused health care models globally, especially in the management of chronic health conditions, and in recognition of challenges faced by lay consumers with finding, understanding, and acting on health information sourced online. There is a paucity of literature exploring the navigational needs of consumers with regards to accessing online health information. Further, existing interventions appear to be didactic in nature, and it is unclear whether such interventions appeal to consumers' needs. Our goal was to explore the navigational needs of consumers with chronic health conditions in finding online health information within the broader context of consumers' online health information-seeking behaviors. Potential barriers to online navigation were also identified. Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult consumers who reported using the Internet for health information and had at least one chronic health condition. Participants were recruited from nine metropolitan community pharmacies within Western Australia, as well as through various media channels. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then imported into QSR NVivo 10. Two established approaches to thematic analysis were adopted. First, a data-driven approach was used to minimize potential bias in analysis and improve construct and criterion validity. A theory-driven approach was subsequently used to confirm themes identified by the former approach and to ensure identified themes were relevant to the objectives. Two levels of analysis were conducted for both data-driven and theory-driven approaches: manifest-level analysis, whereby face-value themes were identified, and latent-level analysis, whereby underlying concepts were identified. We conducted 17 interviews, with data saturation achieved by the 14th interview. While we identified a broad range of online health information-seeking behaviors, most related to information discussed during consumer-health professional consultations such as looking for information about medication side effects. The barriers we identified included intrinsic barriers, such as limited eHealth literacy, and extrinsic barriers, such as the inconsistency of information between different online sources. The navigational needs of our participants were extrinsic in nature and included health professionals directing consumers to appropriate online resources and better filtering of online health information. Our participants' online health information-seeking behaviors, reported barriers, and navigational needs were underpinned by the themes of trust, patient activation, and relevance. This study suggests that existing interventions aimed to assist consumers with navigating online health information may not be what consumers want or perceive they need. eHealth literacy and patient activation appear to be prevalent concepts in the context of consumers' online health information-seeking behaviors. Furthermore, the role for health professionals in guiding consumers to quality online health information is highlighted.

As large language model (LLM)-based chatbots such as ChatGPT (OpenAI) grow in popularity, it is essential to understand their role in delivering online health information compared to other resources. These chatbots often generate inaccurate content, posing potential safety risks. This motivates the need to examine how users perceive and act on health information provided by LLM-based chatbots. This study investigates the patterns, perceptions, and actions of users seeking health information online, including LLM-based chatbots. The relationships between online health information-seeking behaviors and important sociodemographic characteristics are examined as well. A web-based survey of crowd workers was conducted via Prolific. The questionnaire covered sociodemographic information, trust in health care providers, eHealth literacy, artificial intelligence (AI) attitudes, chronic health condition status, online health information source types, perceptions, and actions, such as cross-checking or adherence. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were applied. Most participants consulted search engines (291/297, 98%) and health-related websites (203/297, 68.4%) for their health information, while 21.2% (63/297) used LLM-based chatbots, with ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot being the most popular. Most participants (268/297, 90.2%) sought information on health conditions, with fewer seeking advice on medication (179/297, 60.3%), treatments (137/297, 46.1%), and self-diagnosis (62/297, 23.2%). Perceived information quality and trust varied little across source types. The preferred source for validating information from the internet was consulting health care professionals (40/132, 30.3%), while only a very small percentage of participants (5/214, 2.3%) consulted AI tools to cross-check information from search engines and health-related websites. For information obtained from LLM-based chatbots, 19.4% (12/63) of participants cross-checked the information, while 48.4% (30/63) of participants followed the advice. Both of these rates were lower than information from search engines, health-related websites, forums, or social media. Furthermore, use of LLM-based chatbots for health information was negatively correlated with age (ρ=-0.16, P=.006). In contrast, attitudes surrounding AI for medicine had significant positive correlations with the number of source types consulted for health advice (ρ=0.14, P=.01), use of LLM-based chatbots for health information (ρ=0.31, P<.001), and number of health topics searched (ρ=0.19, P<.001). Although traditional online sources remain dominant, LLM-based chatbots are emerging as a resource for health information for some users, specifically those who are younger and have a higher trust in AI. The perceived quality and trustworthiness of health information varied little across source types. However, the adherence to health information from LLM-based chatbots seemed more cautious compared to search engines or health-related websites. As LLMs continue to evolve, enhancing their accuracy and transparency will be essential in mitigating any potential risks by supporting responsible information-seeking while maximizing the potential of AI in health contexts.

Recent years have witnessed a dramatic increase in consumer online health information seeking. The quality of online health information, however, remains questionable. The issue of information evaluation has become a hot topic, leading to the development of guidelines and checklists to design high-quality online health information. However, little attention has been devoted to how consumers, in particular people with low health literacy, evaluate online health information. The main aim of this study was to review existing evidence on the association between low health literacy and (1) people's ability to evaluate online health information, (2) perceived quality of online health information, (3) trust in online health information, and (4) use of evaluation criteria for online health information. Five academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Communication and Mass-media Complete) were systematically searched. We included peer-reviewed publications investigating differences in the evaluation of online information between people with different health literacy levels. After abstract and full-text screening, 38 articles were included in the review. Only four studies investigated the specific role of low health literacy in the evaluation of online health information. The other studies examined the association between educational level or other skills-based proxies for health literacy, such as general literacy, and outcomes. Results indicate that low health literacy (and related skills) are negatively related to the ability to evaluate online health information and trust in online health information. Evidence on the association with perceived quality of online health information and use of evaluation criteria is inconclusive. The findings indicate that low health literacy (and related skills) play a role in the evaluation of online health information. This topic is therefore worth more scholarly attention. Based on the results of this review, future research in this field should (1) specifically focus on health literacy, (2) devote more attention to the identification of the different criteria people use to evaluate online health information, (3) develop shared definitions and measures for the most commonly used outcomes in the field of evaluation of online health information, and (4) assess the relationship between the different evaluative dimensions and the role played by health literacy in shaping their interplay.