Abstract:Background. Online, algorithmically driven prognostic tools are increasingly important in medical decision making. Institutions developing such tools need to be able to communicate the precision and accuracy of the information in a trustworthy manner, and so many attempt to communicate uncertainties but also use institutional logos to underscore their trustworthiness. Bringing together theories on trust, uncertainty, and psychological distance in a novel way, we tested whether and how the communication of uncertainty and the presence of institutional logos together affected trust in medical information, the prognostic tool itself, and treatment decisions. Methods. A pilot and 2 online experiments in which UK (experiment 1) and worldwide (experiment 2) participants (Ntotal = 4,724) were randomized to 1 of 12 arms in a 3 (uncertainty cue) × 4 (institutional cue) between-subjects design. The stimulus was based on an existing medical prognostic tool. Results. Institutional trust was consistently associated with trust in the prognostic tool itself, while uncertainty information had no consistent effect. Institutional trust predicted the amount of weight participants reported placing on institutional endorsements in their decision making and the likelihood of switching from passive to active treatment in a hypothetical scenario. There was also a significant effect of psychological distance to (perceived hypotheticality of) the scenario. Conclusions/Implications. These results underline the importance of institutions demonstrating trustworthiness and building trust with their users. They also suggest that users tend to be insensitive to communications of uncertainty and that communicators may need to be highly explicit when attempting to warn of low precision or quality of evidence. The effect of the perceived hypotheticality of the scenario underscores the importance of realistic decision-making scenarios for studies and the role of familiarity with the decision dilemma generally. Highlights: In a world where information for medical decision making is increasingly going to be provided through digital, online tools, institutions providing such tools need guidance on how best to communicate about their trustworthiness and precision.We find that people are fairly insensitive to cues designed to communicate uncertainty around the outputs of such tools. Even putting "ATTENTION" in bold font or explicitly pointing out the weaknesses in the data did not appear to affect people's decision making using the tool's outputs. Institutions should take note, and further work is required to determine how best to communicate uncertainty in a way that elicits appropriate caution in lay users.People were much more sensitive to institutional logos associated with the outputs. Generalized institutional trust (rather than trust in the specific institution whose logo was shown) was associated with how trustworthy, accurate, and reliable the tool, its algorithm, and the numbers it produced were perceived to be. This underscores the role of societal trust in institutions at large.Finally, as a note to researchers, we found a significant effect of how hypothetical or believable participants felt the experimental scenario was. This is a variable that seems rarely controlled for in studies and yet played as much of a role as some of our variables of interest, so we suggest that it is measured in future experiments.

Do We Trust the Crowd? Effects of Crowdsourcing on Perceived Credibility of Online Health Information

Exploring Factors Influencing Chinese User's Perceived Credibility of Health and Safety Information on Weibo

Credibility Assessments of Online Health Information: The Effects of Source Expertise and Knowledge of Content

Revealing complexities when adult readers engage in the credibility evaluation of social media posts

Investigating Differences in Crowdsourced News Credibility Assessment: Raters, Tasks, and Expert Criteria

The effects of information source and eHealth literacy on consumer health information credibility evaluation behavior

Source Credibility and the Information Quality Matter in Public Engagement on Social Networking Sites During the COVID-19 Crisis.

Trusting Social Media as a Source of Health Information: Online Surveys Comparing the United States, Korea, and Hong Kong

Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review

“Well, the Message Is From the Institute of Something”: Exploring Source Trust of Cancer-Related Messages on Simulated Facebook Posts

Influences of Medical Crowdfunding Website Design Features on Trust and Intention to Donate: Controlled Laboratory Experiment (Preprint)

Does Social Influence Change with Other Information Sources? A Large-Scale Randomized Experiment in Medical Crowdfunding

What Affects Perceived Trustworthiness of Online Medical Information and Subsequent Treatment Decision Making? Randomized Trials on the Role of Uncertainty and Institutional Cues

Effect of Crowdsourcing on Consumer Brand Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions

Influences of Medical Crowdfunding Website Design Features on Trust and Intention to Donate: Controlled Laboratory Experiment

Applications of crowdsourcing in health: an overview

The Role of Information Cues on Users' Perceived Credibility of Online Health Rumors.

Factors Influencing Online Health Information Credibility: a Meta-Analysis

To Search is to Believe? A Comparative Study of Health Information Use by Internet Users.

Mobile Media and Trust in Sources of Health Information: A Comparative Study in 26 European Countries: doi: 10.7417/CT.2020.2234

Perceived threat and corroboration: key factors that improve a predictive model of trust in internet-based health information and advice