Characteristics of Consumer Terminology for Health Information Retrieval

Q. Zeng; S. Kogan; N. Ash; R. A. Greenes; A. A. Boxwala

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634490

Methods of Information in Medicine, Table of Contents

Methods Inf Med 2002; 41(04): 289-298
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634490

Original article

Schattauer GmbH

Characteristics of Consumer Terminology for Health Information Retrieval

Q. Zeng

¹Decision Systems Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

,

S. Kogan

¹Decision Systems Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

,

N. Ash

¹Decision Systems Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

,

R. A. Greenes

¹Decision Systems Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

,

A. A. Boxwala

¹Decision Systems Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: As millions of consumers perform health information retrieval online, the mismatch between their terminology and the terminologies of the information sources could become a major barrier to successful retrievals. To address this problem, we studied the characteristics of consumer terminology for health information retrieval.

Methods: Our study focused on consumer queries that were used on a consumer health service Web site and a consumer health information Web site. We analyzed data from the site-usage logs and conducted interviews with patients.

Results: Our findings show that consumers’ information retrieval performance is very poor. There are significant mismatches at all levels (lexical, semantic and mental models) between the consumer terminology and both the information source terminology and standard medical vocabularies.

Conclusions: Comprehensive terminology support on all levels is needed for consumer health information retrieval.

Keywords

Consumer health - medical vocabulary - information retrieval - query analysis

Full Text

References

References
1 HarrisInteractive. eHealth Traffic Critically Dependent on Search Engines and Portals. April 23, 2001:http://www.harrisinteractive. com/about/healthnews. Health Care News 2001; 1: 13.
2 Fox S, Rainie L, Horrigan J, Lenhart A, Spooner T, Burke M. et al. The online health care revolution: How the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. The Pew Internet & American Life Project; November 26, 2000
3 Chi-Lum B. Friend or foe? Consumers using the Internet for medical information. J Med Pract Manage 1999; 14 (Suppl. 04) 196-8.
4 Kiley R. Consumer health information on the Internet. J R Soc Med 1998; 91 (Suppl. 04) 202-3.
5 Proceed with Caution: A Report on Quality of Health Information on the Internet. RAND Health and California HealthCare Foundation; May 2001
6 Tattersall MH, Butow PN, Ellis PM. Meeting patients’ information needs beyond the year 2000. Support Care Cancer 1997; 5 (Suppl. 02) 85-9.
7 Tang PC, Newcomb C, Gorden S, Kreider N. Meeting the information needs of patients: results from a patient focus group. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997: 672-6.
8 Jones RB, Hampshire AJ, Tweddle S, Moult B, Hill A. The clinician’s role in meeting patient information needs: suggested learning outcomes. Med Educ 2001; 35 (Suppl. 06) 565-71.
9 Eaden JA, Ward B, Smith H, Mayberry JF. Are we telling patients enough? A pilot study to assess patient information needs in a gastroenterology outpatient department. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998; 10 (Suppl. 01) 63-7.
10 Baker LM. A new method for studying patient information needs and information-seeking patterns. Top Health Inf Manage 1995; 16 (Suppl. 02) 19-28.
11 McCray AT, Loane RF, Browne AC, Bangalore AK. Terminology issues in user access to Web-based medical information. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999: 107-11.
12 Zeng Q, Kogan S, Ash N, Greenes RA. Patient and Clinician Vocabulary: How Different Are They?. MEDINFO. 2001: 399-403.
13 Miller N, Lacroix EM, Backus JE. MEDLINE-plus: building and maintaining the National Library of Medicine’s consumer health Web service. Bull Med Libr Assoc 2000; 88 (Suppl. 01) 11-7.
14 Kravitz RL, Bell RA, Franz CE. A taxonomy of requests by patients (TORP): a new system for understanding clinical negotiation in office practice. J Fam Pract 1999; 48 (Suppl. 11) 872-8.
15 Medicine NNLo. MEDLINE^® . In. p. www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html.
16 Karson TH, Perkins C, Dixon C, Ehresman JP, Mammone GL, Sato L. et al. The PartnerWeb Project: a component-based approach to enterprise-wide information integration and dissemination. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1997: 359-63.
17 Salton G. The smart document retrieval project. Proceedings of the fourteenth annual international ACM/SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 1991: 356-8.
18 Humphreys BL, Lindberg DA, Schoolman HM, Barnett GO. The Unified Medical Language System: an informatics research collaboration. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5 (Suppl. 01) 1-11.
19 Kogan S, Zeng Q, Ash N, Greenes RA. Problems and Challenges in Patient Information Retrieval: A Descriptive Study. Proc AMIA Symp. 2001: 329-33.
20 Hersh W, Price S, Donohoe L. Assessing thesaurus-based query expansion using the UMLS Metathesaurus. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000: 344-8.
21 Hersh WR, Greenes RA. SAPHIRE – an information retrieval system featuring concept matching, automatic indexing, probabilistic retrieval, and hierarchical relationships. Comput Biomed Res 1990; 23 (Suppl. 05) 410-25.
22 Jansen BJ, Spink A, Saracevic T. Failure analysis in query construction: data and analysis from a large sample of Web queries. Proceedings of the third ACM Conference on Digital libraries. 1998: 289-90.