Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Worsley, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Worsley, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 4, No. 3, 367-376, 1989
© 1989 Oxford University Press

research-article

Perceived reliability of sources of health information

Anthony Worsley

Community Studies Unit, University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand

Six hundred and seventy seven respondents to a random population mail survey of diet and health beliefs were asked to rate the perceived reliability of health information from each of 18 sources, and to indicate whether they had referred to these sources in the previous year. The results showed that the family doctor and pharmacist were generally regarded as the most reliable sources, whereas TV advertisements, newspaper and magazine articles were among the least reliable. Factor analysis of these ratings suggested that the sources could be differentiated into three groups: (i)formal sources, e.g. family doctors, pharmacists, chiropractors and natural therapists; (ii) informal sources, e.g. friends and relatives; and (iii) commercial and media sources, e.g. health food shop personnel, fitness instructors and newspaper articles. Several socio-demographic differences were observed in the respondents' perceptions of these three groups, e.g. young people rated the reliability of commercial, media and unorthodox formal sources more highly than other respondents. The results suggest that the public do not sharply distinguish orthodox sources from ‘alternative’ sources. All formal sources, particularly family doctors and pharmacists, have major potential for dissemination of health information, although they may be more attractive to some social groups than others.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
S. M. van Dillen, G. J Hiddink, M. A Koelen, C. de Graaf, and C. M. van Woerkum
Understanding nutrition communication between health professionals and consumers: development of a model for nutrition awareness based on qualitative consumer research
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, April 1, 2003; 77(4): 1065S - 1072.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of HealthHome page
L. Cadman and A. Findlay
Assessing Practice Nurses' change in nutrition knowledge following training from a Primary Care Dietitian
Perspectives in Public Health, August 1, 1998; 118(4): 206 - 209.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
C.-L. COLEMAN
The Influence of Mass Media and Interpersonal Communication on Societal and Personal Risk Judgments
Communication Research, August 1, 1993; 20(4): 611 - 628.
[Abstract]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.