Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11956037›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research

Survey of doctors' experience of patients using the Internet.

Henry W W Potts, Jeremy C Wyatt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Consumer Health Information: A Narrative Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The Implementation Chasm Hindering Genome-informed Health Care.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Toward automated assessment of health Web page quality using the DISCERN instrument.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Qualities and characteristics of successfully matched North American HPB surgery fellowship candidates.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. E-mail communication in the management of gastroenterology patients: a review.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Henry W W PottsCancer Research UK London Psychosocial Group; Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine, London, UK. henry.potts@kcl.ac.uk
Jeremy C Wyatt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health Care SurveysAttitude to ComputersHumansInformation ServicesInternetPatient Education as TopicPhysiciansQuality ControlSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID11956037
PMCPMC1761928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.