ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2002
E-medicine and health care consumers: recognizing current problems and possible resolutions for a safer environment.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- CBT4BN versus CBTF2F: comparison of online versus face-to-face treatment for bulimia nervosa.Contemporary clinical trials · 2012Trial
- Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- Informed citizen and empowered citizen in health: results from an European survey.BMC family practice · 2011Article
- Comparative analysis of medical web search using generalized vs. niche technologies.Journal of medical systems · 2006Article
- The role of an online community for people with a rare disease: content analysis of messages posted on a primary biliary cirrhosis mailinglist.Journal of medical Internet research · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Millions of Americans access the Internet for health information, which is changing the way patients seek information about, and often treat, certain medical conditions. It is estimated that there may be as many as 100,000 health-related Web sites. The availability of so much health information permits consumers to assume more responsibility for their own health care. At the same time, it raises a number of issues that need to be addressed. The health information available to Internet users may be inaccurate or out-of-date. Potential conflicts of interest result from the blurring of the distinction between advertising and professional health information. Also, potential threats to privacy may result from data mining. Health care consumers need to be able to evaluate the quality of the information provided on the Internet. Various evaluative mechanisms such as codes of ethics, rating systems, and seals of approval have been developed to aid in this process. The effectiveness of these solutions is evaluated in this paper. Finally, the paper addresses the importance of including patients in developing standardized quality assurance systems for online health information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12814287What 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.