Patient Preferences for Health Information: A Systematic Review

Part One 

The research was focused on determining the possibility of a change in cancer information seeking preferences and behavior. The main consideration is the vast information sources available to end users, primarily the internet. The results show that reliance on healthcare providers for information had decreased with many preferring the library and internet. 

The data used in the study were descriptive. The researchers collected HINTS data which described the preferences of patients regarding the source of information about their cancers. The data was collected in the year 2003, 2005, and 2007. 

Part Two 

The participants were asked whether they looked for cancer information using a yes or no answer. Hints were then collected where the patients were asked about the first source they used to collect information. The data collected in this design fits in the nominal level of measurement. The ‘yes’ or ‘no’ words were used to classify the data from the sample. The research used surveys to collect the data. Given this, there are several possible sources of errors which include the respondent’s biases, the researcher, and the questionnaire. There is a probability that not all respondents gave accurate answers. From the questionnaire, not all respondents answered the question on whether they are concerned about the quality of information. Further, there are possibilities in data collection by the researcher. 

Part Three 

The parameter studied was the average information sources trusted by cancer patients regarding their conditions. To make a complete understanding of the population, the researchers took a sample of patients that were over 18 years and studied the averages in information sources preferred for the years 2003, 2005, and 2007. The averages included individuals that looked for information, whether they care about the quality of information and the sources used which included: books, health care providers, internet, and library. Drawing from the sample statistics, the researchers were able to conclude the population. 

Part Four 

Null hypothesis H1: Cancer patients, older by age are no more likely to use internet information as opposed to relying on their healthcare providers. 

Alternative Hypothesis H2: Cancer patients, older by age more likely to use internet information as opposed to relying on their healthcare providers. 

The researchers rejected the null hypothesis. The article does not indicate the confidence interval that was used in the analysis. Nevertheless, the uses of different confidence intervals yield different Z scores and thus affect result interpretation. A larger confidence interval makes researchers more confidence that a smaller interval. 

Part Five 

Type I errors happen when researchers incorrectly reject a null hypothesis while type II errors happen when researchers incorrectly retain a false hypothesis. The errors are critical as it will lead the researcher to make erroneous inferences about the populations. Accepting the first hypothesis would mean that the older populations rely more on their healthcare providers than the internet for cancer information. Rejecting the null hypothesis would mean that the alternative hypothesis will be considered. As such, it would mean that older patients rely on the internet more for information compared to reliance on the healthcare providers. From the information, it can be deduced that the null hypothesis is critical for the patients and thus, type I errors are critical to avoid. If the null hypothesis is accepted, intervention measures on information measures will be deemed unnecessary while the contrary is true. As such, more patients will access unreliable information. 

Part Six 

The study indicated that the older generations relied more on the internet sources to get information about cancer as opposed to gaining information from healthcare providers. The information collected is important in understanding the quality of information relied upon by patients regarding their conditions. With the results, healthcare providers can devise measures the educate patients on the most reliable sources of information about their health. Importantly, the use of the internet is important. However, users can be taught on how to differentiate reliable information from those that are misleading. 

The HINTS data used has some limitations such as inconsistency with the type of questions asked in the three years. Thus, original questionnaires can be developed and used to study patients within a given period. Additionally, a systematic review that synthesizes data from different sources can be used evaluate information sources from the patients perspective.