Search results

Purpose: Previous research has found that people’s trust in a source of information affects whether they will expose themselves to information from that source, pay attention to that source, and the likelihood that they will act on the information obtained from that source. This study tracked trends in levels of trust in different health information sources over time and investigated sociodemographic predictors of trust in these sources.

Methodology/Approach: Data were drawn from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of adults in the USA. Weighted percentages, means, and standard errors for trust in health information sources were computed using data from four iterations of the survey (2005, 2009, 2012, and 2013). Weighted multivariable logistic regression models were employed to investigate associations between sociodemographic variables and level of trust in health information sources using HINTS 2013 data.

Findings: Trend analyses revealed declining trust in “traditional” mass media channels, such as television and radio, for health information and consistently high trust in interpersonal sources, like physicians, over the past decade. Regression analyses showed that those with more education (ORs 2.93–4.59, p < 0.05) and higher incomes (ORs 1.65–2.09, p < 0.05) were more likely to trust the Internet for health information than those with less education and lower incomes. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to trust mass media channels in comparison to Non-Hispanic Whites (ORs 1.73–2.20, p < 0.05).

Implications: These findings can be used to inform the strategic selection of channels for disseminating health information to certain demographic groups.

Whereas the Industrial Revolution attracted workers away from home‐based community settings to central locations, the current proliferation of personal computers and asynchronous telecommunications technologies is reversing this trend. By networking employees from different geographical sites together, these technologies are producing “hybrid” organizational structures that permit their members to work within flexible schedules and in flexible places, even to the point of working at home. The result is the electronically distributed work community: a population of nonproximal coworkers who labor together electronically. This paper presents a springboard for conducting research on telework as it is understood within the context of that community. The paper begins with a brief history of telecommuting and describes its influence on the electronic community and organizational structures in general within the past two decades. The paper concludes by presenting implications for research on telework in the areas of privacy regulation, emergency preparedness, self‐efficacy, temporal aspects of employee behavior, communication patterns, and organizational effectiveness.

Dr Huddleston discusses the field of industrial relations and argues that matters could be considerably improved “by short orientation courses based on sociology. Much of what he says may read like special pleading, some of what he says we do not agree with. However, considering the likelihood of future clashes on the union front, his plea for less ignorance and more commonsense education bears hearing.

ANYBODY whoses daily work involves the planning and spending of money must at all times be concerned by efforts to ensure that value is being obtained for the money spent. Those of us who, as librarians, are spending the money of fellow tax‐payers, are naturally doubly concerned about this problem. In addition, the very phrase “value for money” to a Yorkshireman is a continual challenge, and a point on which he instinctively feels, rightly or wrongly, that he has some secret inborn knowledge.

MR. DENIS HOWELL, M.P., Minister for Libraries, who was to have told Conference how public libraries had progressed since the Act, had to withdraw and so we did not find out how the responsible minister felt about us.

The meaning of management is partly the management of meaning. Management is an activity in which people collaborate not just over what they do but also how they mean: how concepts like “effective” are defined and made actual through work, and how knowledge can properly be applied to management situations. Such knowledge is not merely intellectual; it takes in values and belief systems and the intentionalities of discourse. Management is also an area in which over‐arching paradigms of what is best to know and do demonstrate pluralistic and collaborative features. What is known, and what is best to know, therefore, are built up through negotiation and reformulation. This occurs in settings characterised by organisational cultures and authority structures like line management, and in these we find meanings being negotiated for many complex cognitive, ideological and interpersonal reasons (such as to avoid “loss of face”). In professional information training, it is important to develop knowledge of, and skills in, the management of meaning, using negotiative strategies and tactics.