Perceptions of low income HIV+ persons about finding accurate web-based health information.

AIM: To explore perceptions of low income persons living with HIV/AIDS and history of substance abuse about how they decide whether an internet site is a credible source of health-related information. BACKGROUND: It is hard for any consumer to determine whether the information that is available on the internet is trustworthy and even more challenging for consumers with low health literacy and insufficient computer literacy skills. METHODS: Mixed methods with sequential explanatory design. Electronic health literacy was measured with eHEALS and a new instrument to measure confidence in choosing a credible internet site for health-related information was developed. Qualitative data were collected during three focus groups held in high prevalence neighborhoods in New York City and after participants watched a 16-minute video produced by the United States National Library of Medicine. RESULTS: Participants had low electronic health literacy and there was no relationship between electronic health literacy and confidence in identifying a credible internet site. Six themes emerged: I haven't learned enough from the Medline video; I am not computer literate; the Internet has too many scams; the Internet piques interest in learning health-related information; prefer 1:1 interactions with trusted source for health information; and you don't have to expose HIV status to get information. CONCLUSION: Low income persons are interested in using the internet for health information but reluctant to do so due to multiple complex barriers. Follow-up interventions would include skills training in which persons are taught how to identify credible sites.

Developing a personal health record self-efficacy tool.

The purpose of this preliminary work was to develop a new short tool to assess personal health records (PHRs) self-efficacy. Prior work had found 4 distinct skills related to creating, updating, tracking symptoms, and sharing information with health care providers using PHR. Although PHRs have great promise, their uptake has been rather limited, especially in economically limited populations. A convenience sample of community-living persons with HIV/AIDS (N = 100) was asked to complete the new tool along with other self-efficacy measures. Preliminary work indicated more confidence about paper-based PHRs compared with computer-based PHRs. The paper-based subscale was significantly correlated to chronic illness and HIV treatment self-efficacy scales as expected, but there were no relationships for the computer-based subscale. This simple screening tool could identify interested clients and their preference either for a paper-based or computer-based PHR. Further research is needed with larger sample sizes and different chronically ill populations to further explore the psychometrics of the instrument.