References
- Fox S, Duggan M. Health online 2013. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2013: 1–4. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf%5Cnhttp://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/#.
- Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJ. Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(9):859–60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc0909595
- Veale HJ, Sacks-Davis R, Weaver ER, Pedrana AE, Stoové MA, Hellard ME. The use of social networking platforms for sexual health promotion: identifying key strategies for successful user engagement. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1396-z.
- Guo L, Zhang M, Wang Y. Effects of customers’ psychological characteristics on their engagement behavior in company social networks. Soc Behav Person Int J. 2016;44(10):1661–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.10.1661.
- Boulos MNK, Wheeler S. The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Info Libr J. 2007;24:2–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x.
- Cairncross S, Mannion M. Interactive multimedia and learning: Realizing the benefits. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2001;38(2):156–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290110035428.
- Crutzen R, de Nooijer J, Brouwer W, Oenema A, Brug J, de Vries NK. Strategies to facilitate exposure to internet-delivered health behavior change interventions aimed at adolescents or young adults: A systematic review. Health Educat Behav. 2011;38:49–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198110372878.
- Neiger BL, Thackeray R, Burton SH, Giraud-Carrier CG, Fagen MC. Evaluating social media’s capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: Use of Twitter metrics as a case study. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(2):157–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912469378.
- Strecher VJ, McClure J, Alexander G, Chakraborty B, Nair V, Konkel J, et al. The role of engagement in a tailored web-based smoking cessation program: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(5):1–10. doi:https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1002.
- Bonk RJ. Commentary: social contracts for open access of healthcare information. J Commun Healthc. 2017;10(3):159–61. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2017.1376790.
- Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ. Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. J Pragmat. 2013;59:210–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012.
- Kao DT. The impacts of goal orientation, terminology effect, and source credibility on communication effectiveness. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2013;43(10):2007–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12154.
- Cegala DJ, Post DM. The impact of patients’ participation on physicians’ patient-centered communication. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:202–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.025.
- Zimmermann M, Jucks R. How experts’ use of medical technical jargon in different types of online health forums affects perceived information credibility: Randomized experiment with laypersons. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(1):e30. doi:https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8346.
- Xu Z, Ellis L, Umphrey LR. The easier the Better? Comparing the readability and engagement of online pro- and anti-vaccination articles. Health Educ Behav. 2019;46(5):790–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198119853614.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Everyday words for public health communication. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/other/pdf/EverydayWordsForPublicHealthCommunication.pdf.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Plain language materials & resources. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/developmaterials/plainlanguage.html.
- D’Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J. The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the world wide web. Arch Pediatr Adolescent Med. 2001;155:807–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.155.7.807.
- Clear & Simple-Step 3: Develop a Concept for the Product. 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nihoffice-director/office-communications-public-liaison/clear-communication/clear-simple.
- Chaiken S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39(5):752–66. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752.
- Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The Elaboration Likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1986;19(C):123–205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2.
- Fogg BJ, Soohoo C, Danielson DR, Marable L, Stanford J, Tauber ER. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. In Proceedings if the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, San Francisco, CA. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997097.
- Metzger MJ. Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58:2078–91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20672.
- Todorov A, Chaiken S, Henderson MD. The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In: JP Dillard, M Pfau, editor. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2012. p. 195–212.
- Hilligoss B, Rieh SY. Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Inform Process Manage. 2008;44:1467–84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001.
- Sundar SS. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MJ Metzger, AJ Flanagin, editor. Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2008. p. 73–100.
- Fang B, Ye Q, Kucukusta D, Law R. Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics. Tour Manage. 2016;52:498–506. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.018.
- Li B, Hou F, Guan Z, Chong AYL, Pu X. (2017). Evaluating online review helpfulness based on elaboration likelihood model: The moderating role of readability. Paper presented at the proceedings of Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article = 1016&context = pacis2017.
- Xu Z, Guo H. Using text mining to compare online pro- and anti-vaccine headlines: word usage, sentiments, and online popularity. Commun Stud. 2018;69(1):103–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2017.1414068.
- Xu Z. Personal stories matter: topic evolution and popularity among pro- and anti-vaccine online articles. J Comput Soc Sci. 2019;2(2):207–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-019-00044-w.
- Shen F, Sheer VC, Li R. Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. J Advert. 2015;44(2):105–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018467.
- Humphreys A, Wang RJH. Automated text analysis for consumer research. J Consum Res. 2018;44:1247–306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx104.
- Pennebaker JW, Francis M, Booth RJ. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway (NJ): Erlbaum Publishers; 2001.
- Lowe W. (2006). Yoshikoder: An open source multilingual content analysis tool for social scientists. Available at: www.yoshikoder.org.
- Daku M, Soroka S, Young L. (2015, September 1). Lexicoder v 3.0.
- Bara J, Weale A, Bicquelet A. Analysing parliamentary debate with computer assistance. Swiss Polit Sci Rev. 2007;13(4):577–605. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00090.x.
- SharedCount. (n.d.). Available at: https://www.sharedcount.com/.
- McLaughlin G. SMOG grading—A new readability formula. J Read. 1969;12:639–46.
- Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: Application, results, and recommendations. Res Soc Administ Pharm. 2013;9:503–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009.
- Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(3):372–422. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.
- Rayner K, Raney GE, Sereno SC. Eye Movement Control in reading: A Comparison of Two Types of Models. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform. 1996;22(5):1188–200. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.5.1188.
- Rayner K, Slattery TJ, Drieghe D, Liversedge SP. Eye movements and word skipping during reading: effects of word length and predictability. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform. 2011;37(2):514–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020990.
- Eysenbach G, Diepgen T. L. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. Br Med J. 1998;317(7171):1496–1502. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1496
- Sillence E, Briggs P, Fishwick L, Harris P. (2004). Trust and mistrust of online health sites. Proceedings of the 2004 conference on human factors in computing systems. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985776.
- Desjardins J. (2018). How Google retains more than 90% of market share. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-retains-more-than-90-of-market-share-2018-4.
- Bonk RJ. Enhancing comprehension through suitability: An analysis of the US Medicare plan handbook. J Commun Healthc. 2011;4(3):178–86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1179/1753807611y.0000000003.
- Bonk RJ. Complexity versus comprehension: A content analysis of the US Medicare prescription drug plan. J Commun Healthc. 2012;2(2):119–39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1179/175380609790912788 doi: https://doi.org/10.1179/cih.2009.2.2.119