You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Believing in Expertise: How Authors’ Credentials and Language Use Influence the Credibility of Online Health Information
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Communication, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1080/10410236.2016.1172296 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Franziska M. Thon, Regina Jucks |
| Abstract |
Today, many people use the Internet to seek health advice. This study examines how an author's expertise is established and how this affects the credibility of his or her online health information. In a 2 (authors' credentials: medical vs. nonmedical) × 2 (authors' language use: technical vs. every day) within-subjects design, 127 study participants, or "seekers," judged authors' expertise, benevolence, and integrity as well as the credibility of their medical statements. In addition, we assessed seekers' awareness of their own knowledge and behavior. Results revealed that users consciously rewarded authors' credentials and subconsciously punished technical language. Seekers were keenly aware of authors' credentials and perceived authors with medical credentials to have a higher level of expertise and their information to be more credible. Technical language use negatively affected authors' integrity and the credibility of their health information, despite seekers being unaware of it. Practical implications for health communication and implications for future research are outlined. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 110 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 35 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 36 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,171,738
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Health Communication
#531
of 1,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,468
of 365,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Communication
#27
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.