ArticleJournal of medical Internet research
Survey of doctors' experience of patients using the Internet.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Physician Perspectives on Internet-Informed Patients: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners' Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based Survey: A Randomized Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Trial
- Paper-Based Survivorship Care Plans May be Less Helpful for Cancer Patients Who Search for Disease-Related Information on the Internet: Results of the Registrationsystem Oncological Gynecology (ROGY) Care Randomized Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Trial
- Effects of incentives and prenotification on response rates and costs in a national web survey of physicians.Evaluation & the health professions · 2011Trial
- Consumer Health Information: A Narrative Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Review
- Exploring online health information quality criteria on social media: a mixed method approach.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Review
- Dr. Google: Physicians-The Web-Patients Triangle: Digital Skills and Attitudes towards e-Health Solutions among Physicians in South Eastern Poland-A Cross-Sectional Study in a Pre-COVID-19 Era.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The Implementation Chasm Hindering Genome-informed Health Care.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
- Defining Information Quality Into Health Websites: A Conceptual Framework of Health Website Information Quality for Educated Young Adults.JMIR human factors · 2017Article
- Toward automated assessment of health Web page quality using the DISCERN instrument.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
- Survey of Spanish general practitioners' attitudes toward management of sore throat: an internet-based questionnaire study.BMC family practice · 2017Article
- Feasibility of an Electronic Survey on iPads with In-Person Data Collectors for Data Collection with Health Care Professionals and Health Care Consumers in General Emergency Departments.JMIR research protocols · 2016Article
- Qualities and characteristics of successfully matched North American HPB surgery fellowship candidates.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2016Article
- Online Patient Education for Chronic Disease Management: Consumer Perspectives.Journal of medical systems · 2016Article
- Benefits of online health education: perception from consumers and health professionals.Journal of medical systems · 2015Article
- Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities.Patient education and counseling · 2014Article
- Social media: opportunities for quality improvement and lessons for providers-a networked model for patient-centered care through digital engagement.Current cardiology reports · 2014Review
- E-mail communication in the management of gastroenterology patients: a review.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere have been many studies showing the variable quality of Internet health information and it has often been assumed that patients will blindly follow this and frequently come to harm. There have also been reports of problems for doctors and health services following patient Internet use, but their frequency has not been quantified. However, there have been no large, rigorous surveys of the perceptions of Internet-aware doctors about the actual benefits and harms to their patients of using the Internet.
objectiveTo describe Internet-literate doctors' experiences of their patients' use of the Internet and resulting benefits and problems.
methodsOnline survey to a group of 800 Web-using doctors (members of a UK medical Internet service provider, Medix) in September and October 2001.
resultsResponses were received from 748 (94%) doctors, including 375 general practitioners (50%). Respondents estimated that 1%-2% of their patients used the Internet for health information in the past month with no regional variation. Over two thirds of the doctors considered Internet health information to be usually (20%) or sometimes (48%) reliable; this was higher in those recently qualified. Twice as many reported patients experiencing benefits (85%; 95% confidence interval, 80%-90%) than problems (44%; 95% confidence interval, 37%-50%) from the Internet. Patients gaining actual physical benefits from Internet use were reported by 40% of respondents, while 8% reported physical harm. Patients' overall experiences with the Internet were judged excellent 1%, good 29%, neutral 62%, poor 9%, or bad <1%. Turning to the impact of patient Internet use on the doctors themselves, 13% reported no problems, 38% 1 problem, and 49% 2 or more problems. Conversely, 20% reported no benefits for themselves, 49% 1 benefit, and 21% 2 or more benefits.
conclusionsThese doctors reported patient benefits from Internet use much more often than harms, but there were more problems than benefits for the doctors themselves. Reported estimates of patient Internet usage rates were low. Overall, this survey suggests that patients are deriving considerable benefits from using the Internet and that some of the claimed risks seem to have been exaggerated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.