Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14728279›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2003

Assessment strategies: how patients cope with the diverse quality levels of websites when searching for health information.

Samantha Adams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Samantha AdamsErasmus University Medical Center, Department of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quality of online medical information available for patients has long been a concern of health care professionals. [1-4] Although initiatives exist for patients to use when searching for information, there is the concern that these initiatives are either ineffective or even counter-productive. [5-6] Another criticism is that initiatives do not sufficiently achieve their respective goals. [7-8] It is important to consider that many initiatives have been designed with patients in mind, but not with patients involved. Various portals, seals, rating systems, ethical codes, etc., exist ostensibly for patients, but arose largely without concrete input from real patients-as-end-users. Literature addressing usability on the basis of studies assessing real patients' searching behaviors appeared only in 2002. [9-11] The conclusions from these studies, while insightful, reflect the need for ongoing research into the daily practices of patients searching for web-based health care information. This poster highlights the first results of a systematic ethnographic study (interviews and shadow-searching carried out between November, 2001 and August, 2003) to determine how patients approach health care information when searching on the internet and illustrates the different strategies that patients use to assess the health information they encounter on the web.

Indexed as

Health EducationHumansInformation ServicesInformation Storage and RetrievalInternet

Identifiers

PMID14728279
PMCPMC1480087

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.