Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Mar 27:12:1249621.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1249621. eCollection 2024.

Validity evaluation of the Health Information Preferences Questionnaire among college students

Affiliations
Review

Validity evaluation of the Health Information Preferences Questionnaire among college students

Kaiqi Tang et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to explore the association between health information preferences and specific health behaviors and outcomes, such as preventive measures and chronic disease management among college students. It assesses how different levels of health information preference influence individuals' utilization, perception, and self-efficacy within healthcare and health information contexts. Given the rising prevalence of non-communicable chronic diseases among younger populations in China, this research seeks to understand how tailored health information preferences can support effective health education and behavioral interventions. The development of the Health Information Preference Questionnaire (HIPQ) aims to bridge the existing gap in tools for assessing health information preferences among Chinese college students, with a focus on collecting validity evidence to confirm the HIPQ's applicability in this group.

Methods: The study employed a mixed-methods approach, beginning with an initial item pool derived from a comprehensive review of existing research tools, literature, and expert inputs. An expert review panel conducted item evaluations, leading to item reduction for clarity and relevance. The validation process utilized two independent samples of college students, detailing the sample size (n = 446 for preliminary testing, n = 1,593 for validation) and characteristics (age, major, urban vs. rural background) to enhance the understanding of the study's generalizability.

Results: The HIPQ, comprising 25 items across five dimensions-prevention-oriented approaches, relationship with healthcare providers, self-efficacy in obtaining health information, perception of the importance of health information, and health information behavior-demonstrated excellent content validity (ICVI ranged from 0.72 to 0.86). Factor analysis confirmed significant loadings for each item across the anticipated factors, with fit indices (RMSEA = 0.065, CFI = 0.942) supporting good model fit. The HIPQ's reliability was underscored by Cronbach's alpha coefficients (>0.8) for each subscale, with significant correlations across all subscales, indicating strong internal consistency and construct validity.

Conclusion: The HIPQ proves to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing health information preferences among Chinese college students, highlighting its potential for broader application in health education and intervention strategies. Recognizing the study's focus on a specific demographic, future research should investigate the HIPQ's adaptability and utility in broader populations and different cultural settings. The study's limitations, including its concentrated demographic and context, invite further exploration into the HIPQ's applicability across diverse groups. Additionally, potential future research directions could include longitudinal studies to assess the impact of tailored health information on actual health outcomes and behaviors.

Keywords: Health Information Preference Questionnaire; college students; health behavior and outcomes; health information preference; validity and reliability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The research process of HIPQ.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The measurement model of HIPQ. PO, prevention-oriented; RHP, relationship with healthcare provider; SOHI, self-efficacy for obtaining health information; PHII, perception of health information’s importance; HIB, health information behavior.

Similar articles

References

    1. Hibbard JH, Peters E. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annu Rev Public Health. (2003) 24:413–33. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.141005, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Üstün TB, Chatterji S, Mechbal A, Murray CJ, WHS Collaborating Group . Health systems Performance Assessment: Debates, Methods and Empiricism. Geneva: World Health Organization; (2003). 797 p.
    1. Tomasi E, Facchini LA, Maia MF. Health information technology in primary health care in developing countries: a literature review. Bull World Health Organ. (2004) 82:867–74. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Soroya SH, Farooq A, Mahmood K, Isoaho J, Zara S. From information seeking to information avoidance: understanding the health information behavior during a global health crisis. Inf Process Manag. (2021) 58:102440. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102440, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Solomon NM. Health information generation and utilization for informed decision-making in equitable health service management: the case of Kenya Partnership for Health program. Int J Equity Health. (2005) 4:8. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-4-8, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types