The Information Assessment Method: Over 15 years of research evaluating the value of health information

Abstract

The Information Assessment Method (IAM) is unique, theory-driven, and validated by and for different audiences. Based on a theoretical model of information outcomes, the IAM questionnaire is organized in four levels: situational relevance, cognitive impact, use, and health outcomes of information. To evaluate health information, the IAM questionnaire has been used as an outcome measure providing feedback from the viewpoint of information users, who are clinicians, managers, patients or the public. The IAM stimulates the user to rate specific health information content online (e.g., on a webpage), thereby capturing their reflection (e.g., reflective learning) and feedback. Subsequently, ratings and comments can be used by information providers to improve their content.

Keywords

Information seeking information outcomes impact assessment mixed methods participatory research primary health care evidence-based clinical practice consumer health information

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Badran

. Pluye

., & Grad

. (2017). When educational material is delivered: A mixed methods content validation study of the information assessment method. Journal of Medical Internet Research – Medical Education, 3(1), e4.

Bawden

., & Robinson

. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180-191.

Bujold

. El Sherif

. Bush

. Johnson-Lafleur

. Doray

., & Pluye

. (2018). Ecological content validation of the Information Assessment Method for parents (IAM-parent): A mixed methods study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 66, 79-88.

Bujold

. Pluye

. Légaré

. Haggerty

. Gore

G. C

. Sherif

R. E.

Poitras

M.-È

. Beaulieu

M.-C

. Beaulieu

M.-D

. Bush

P. L

. Couturier

. Débarges

. Gagnon

. Giguère

. Grad

. Granikov

. Goulet

. Hudon

. Kremer

. Kröger

. Kudrina

. Lebouché

. Loignon

. Lussier

M.-T

. Martello

. Nguyen

. Pratt

. Rihoux

Rosenberg

. Samson

. Senn

. Li Tang

. Tsujimoto

. Vedel

Ventelou

., & Wensing

. (2017). Decisional needs assessment of patients with complex care needs in primary care: A participatory systematic mixed studies review protocol. BMJ Open, 7(11), e016400.

Bush

P. L

. Pluye

. Loignon

. Granikov

. Wright

M. T

. Pelletier

J.-F

. Bartlett-Esquilant

. Macaulay

A. C

. Haggerty

., & Parry

. (2017). Organizational participatory research: a systematic mixed studies review exposing its extra benefits and the key factors associated with them. Implementation Science, 12(119), 1-16.

Bush

P. L

. Pluye

. Loignon

. Granikov

. Wright

M. T.

Repchinsky

. Haggerty

. Bartlett

. Parry

., & Pelletier

J.-F

. (2018). A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance. BMC Health Services Research, 18(992), 1-15.

Cabana

. Rand

. Powe

. Wu

. Wilson

. Abboud

., & Rubin

. (1999). Why Don’t Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines? A Framework for Improvement. Journal of American Medical Association, 282(15), 1458-1465.

Carroll

. Booth

. Leaviss

., & Rick

. (2013). Best fit framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 1-16.

Case

., & O’Connor, L . (2016). What’s the use? Measuring the frequency of studies of information outcomes. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 649-661.

10.

Craig

. Irwig

., & Stockler

. (2001). Evidence-based medicine: useful tools for decision making. The Medical Journal of Australia, 174(5), 248-235.

11.

Creswell

., & Plano Clark, V . (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

El Sherif

. Roy

. Tang

D. L

. Doray

. Dubois

. Bush

. Lagarde

., & Pluye

. (2017). The value of user feedback: Parent’s comments to online health and well-being information providers (Vol. 54). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

13.

Grad

., & Ebell

. (2017). Top POEMs of 2016 Consistent with the Principles of the Choosing Wisely Campaign. American Family Physician, 96(4), 234-239.

14.

Grad

. Pluye

. Tang

. Shulha

. Slawson

D. C

., & Shaughnessy

A. F

. (2015). Patient-oriented evidence that matters (POEMs)TM suggest potential clinical topics for the Choosing WiselyTM campaign. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 28(2), 184-189.

15.

Greenhalgh

. Howick

., & Maskrey

. (2014). Evidence based medicine: A movement in crisis? British Medical Journal, 348, g3725.

16.

Grol

., & Grimshaw

. (2003). From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. The Lancet, 362(9391), 1225-1230.

17.

Haynes

S. N

. Richard

., & Kubany

E. S. J. P. A

. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238-247.

18.

Hogan

. Parent

., & Stephenson

. (2012). Introduction à la psychométrie. Montréal: Les Editions de la Cheneliere.

19.

Jacobs

. Amuta

A. O

., & Jeon

K. C

. (2017). Health information seeking in the digital age: An analysis of health information seeking behavior among US adults. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1-11.

20.

Johnson

. Onewuegbuzie

., & Turner

. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

21.

Johnson

. Watkinson

., & Mabe

. (2018). The STM report, an overview of scientific and scholarly publishing. Retrieved from www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf.

22.

Khabsa

., & Giles

. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS One, 9(5), e93949.

23.

Pluye

. El Sherif

. Bartlett

. Granikov

. Grad

R. M

. Doray

. Lagarde

. Loignon

., & Bouthillier

. (2017). Overcoming the digital divide? Low education low income parents are equally likely to report benefits associated with online parenting information (Vol. 54). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

24.

Pluye

. El Sherif

. Granikov

. Barbosa Galvao

. Hong

. Vedel

. Frati

. Desroches

. Repchinsky

. Rihoux

. Légaré

. Burnand

. Bujold

., & Grad

. (2019). Health outcomes of online consumer health information: A systematic mixed studies review with framework synthesis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(7), 643-659.

25.

Pluye

. García Bengoechea

. Granikov

. Kaur

., & Tang

. (2018). A world of possibilities in mixed methods: Review of the combinations of strategies used to integrate the phases, results and qualitative and quantitative data. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 41-56.

26.

Pluye

. Grad

., & Barlow

. (2017). Look It Up!: What Patients, Doctors, Nurses, and Pharmacists Need to Know about the Internet and Primary Health Care. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

27.

Pluye

. Grad

. Repchinsky

. Jovaisas

. Johnson-Lafleur

. Carrier

. Granikov

. Farrell

. Rodriguez

. Bartlett

. Loiselle

., & Légaré

. (2013). Four levels of outcomes of information-seeking: a mixed methods study in primary health care. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 108-125.

28.

Pluye

. Grad

R. M

. Dunikowski

L. G

., & Stephenson

. (2005). Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: A literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 74(9), 745-768.

29.

Pluye

., & Hong

. (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 29-45.

30.

Prestin

. Vieux

S. N

., & Chou

W.-y. S

. (2015). Is online health activity alive and well or flatlining? Findings from 10 years of the Health Information National Trends Survey. Journal of Health Communication, 20(7), 790-798.

31.

Sackett

., & Straus

. (1998). Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: The evidence cart. Journal of American Medical Association, 280(15), 1336-1338.

32.

Saracevic

., & Kantor

. (1997). Studying the value of library and information services – Part I. Establishing a theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 527-542.

33.

Tang

. Bouthillier

. Pluye

. Grad

., & Repchinsky

. (2015). The value of user feedback: Healthcare professionals’ comments to the health information provider. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 377-391.

34.

Urquhart

., & Turner

. (2016). Reflections on the value and impact of library and information services: Part 2: impact assessment. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 17(1), 5-28.

35.

Vogt

D. S

. King

D. W

., & King

L. A

. (2004). Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 231-243.

36.

Ware

., & Mabe

. (2015). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing . Retrieved from https://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf