ORCID
Bailey Fraser, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0128-3749; Emily Pica, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4100-226X
Abstract
Surveys in Canada and the United States have indicated declines in subjective well-being alongside growing public interest in improving personal health. With increased availability of credible and non-credible health information, particularly online, it is important to understand how the public perceives the credibility of various information sources for physical and mental health information. The present research is the first known study to directly compare perceptions of source credibility across mental versus physical health contexts and to examine associated information-seeking behaviors. Results indicated that participants consistently rated professional sources as more credible than layperson sources and perceived meaningful differences in the credibility of mental versus physical health information sources. Patterns of information seeking also revealed that healthcare providers were the most commonly consulted source for both health domains, whereas podcasts/videos were the least used; support groups and community organizations were selected more frequently for mental than physical health. Participants primarily used health information to guide personal health decisions and identified scientific research or data as the most meaningful form of evidence despite also attributing relatively high credibility to personal experience. These findings offer insight into how people navigate contemporary health information environments and highlight opportunities for improving the design and implementation of public-facing health communication initiatives. The study contributes to interdisciplinary health and social science research by identifying factors that may enhance the effectiveness of future interventions aimed at promoting informed health decision-making.
