Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11141859›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2000

How much interest is the Internet to patients?

J Ross, C Chapman, C Murray, M Stevenson, D Natin, K Rogstad

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Acceptance of Swedish e-health services.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2010
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J RossWhittall Street Clinic, Whittall Street, Birmingham B4 6DH, UK. j.d.c.ross@bham.ac.uk
C Chapman
C Murray
M Stevenson
D Natin
K Rogstad
Whittington Health NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the accessibility of the internet, the level of interest from patients attending genitourinary (GU) medicine clinics, and explore potential concerns about confidentiality.

methodsQuestionnaire based survey of patients attending five GU medicine clinics in England.

results41% of GU medicine clinic patients in 1999 had access to the internet (range 31%-52%) with access more common in younger age groups, and less common in women and black Caribbean patients. One in 10 patients (with internet access) had used the internet to find out more about the problem with which they had come to the clinic. 60% of patients replied that information on sexual health on the internet was of interest to them and a high proportion of patients said they would use the internet to access information about GU clinics (64%), book an appointment (64%) or get test results (63%). Almost a quarter of patients who made additional suggestions wanted an interactive website.

conclusionsA high proportion of patients attending GU clinics have access to the internet with potential uses for health education and service delivery.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthMale Urogenital DiseasesAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsAttitude to ComputersConfidentialityFemaleFemale Urogenital DiseasesHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID11141859
PMCPMC1744223
OpenAlexW2080854268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.