情报科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (9): 19-30.

• 理论研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

在线健康信息采纳意愿影响因素研究 ——基于元分析方法的探索

  

  • 出版日期:2025-09-05 发布日期:2025-12-12

  • Online:2025-09-05 Published:2025-12-12

摘要: 【目的/意义】随着在线平台的普及,用户通过这些平台获取和分享健康信息的行为日益增多。本研究旨在 运用元分析方法,探索影响健康信息采纳意愿的多种因素,以期为促进有效的健康信息传播、提高公众健康素养提 供科学依据。【方法/过程】采用元分析方法对定量数据进行综合分析,识别出包括感知有用性、感知易用性、社会影 响等在内的多个关键影响因素,并探讨了这些因素与在线健康信息采纳意愿之间的关系强度和作用特点。【结果/ 结论】元分析识别出在线健康信息采纳意愿的14个关键影响因素,其中感知有用性、社会影响、态度等影响因素与 采纳意愿呈强相关关系。研究时间和平台类型一定程度上会对在线健康信息采纳意愿与其关键影响因素的相关 关系产生调节作用。【创新/局限】本研究运用元分析方法提取关键因素,分析其与采纳意愿的关联,并以研究时间 和平台类型为调节变量展开探究,成果为健康信息优化、服务开发及政策制定提供科学依据。然而,受原始文献偏 差与数据误差影响,元分析结果可靠性受限,且因数据量不足仅设两个调节变量,难以全面考量研究差异,后续可 拓宽检索、细分变量深入研究。

Abstract: 【Purpose/significance】With the popularity of online platforms, users are more and more likely to obtain and share health information through these platforms. This study aims to explore various factors affecting the willingness to adopt health information, in order to provide a scientific basis for promoting effective health information dissemination and improving public health literacy. 【Method/process】Meta-analysis method was used to comprehensively analyze the quantitative data, identify several key influencing factors, including perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, social impact, etc., and explore the strength and characteristics of the re⁃ lationship between these factors and the willingness to adopt online health information.【Result/conclusion】Meta-analysis identified 14 key influencing factors of willingness to adopt online health information, among which the influencing factors, such as perceived usefulness, social influence and attitude, were strongly correlated with willingness to adopt. The duration of study and platform type will partly regulate the correlation between the willingness to adopt online health information and its key influencing factors.【Innova⁃ tion/limitation】This study employs meta-analysis to extract key factors and analyze their association with adoption intentions, using research time and platform type as moderating variables. The findings provide a scientific basis for optimizing health information, de⁃ veloping services, and formulating policies. However, due to biases in the original literature and data errors, the reliability of the metaanalysis results is limited. Additionally, with insufficient data, only two moderating variables were set, making it difficult to fully con⁃ sider research differences. Future studies could broaden the search scope and further refine the variables for more in-depth analysis.