ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2004
How the internet affects patients' experience of cancer: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 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
126 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 493 citations in OpenAlex.
- The waiting room of uncertainty: digital patient support for potentially bad news-a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Risks and Benefits of Web-Based Patient Narratives: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- How breast cancer patients want to search for and retrieve information from stories of other patients on the internet: an online randomized controlled experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2010Trial
- Informing men about prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial of patient education materials.Journal of general internal medicine · 2008Trial
- Covert Promotional Cancer-Related Content in Korean Search Engines: Computational Content Analysis of Naver and Google.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Double-Edged Nature of Patient-to-Patient Interactions in Digital Healthcare Communities: A Qualitative Study of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient-driven second opinions in oncology: a review.The oncologist · 2026Review
- Article
- Emotion Expression in Breast Cancer Support Seeking: Empirical Study of an Online Community.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Connected and supported: a scoping review of how online communities provide social support for breast cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Predictors of Posting Health-Related Content Among US Facebook Users: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Analyzing Usage of the Metaverse by Associations of Patients With Prostate Cancer During the 2023 Blue Ribbon Campaign: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- Readability of Hospital Online Patient Education Materials Across Otolaryngology Specialties.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Article
- Sociodemographic Factors Associated With Using eHealth for Information Seeking in the United States: Cross-Sectional Population-Based Study With 3 Time Points Using Health Information National Trends Survey Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Perceived Penalties for Sharing Patient Beliefs with Health Care Providers.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- TrachGPT: Appraisal of tracheostomy care recommendations from an artificial intelligent Chatbot.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- More knowledge, more choices? How peer recognition of physicians' knowledge sharing affect patients' consultation in online health communities.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore how men and women with cancer talk about using the internet.
designQualitative study using semistructured interviews collected by maximum variation sampling.
settingRespondents recruited throughout the United Kingdom during 2001-2.
participants175 men and women aged 19-83 years, with one of five cancers (prostate, testicular, breast, cervical, or bowel) diagnosed since 1992 and selected to include different stages of treatment and follow up.
resultsInternet use, either directly or via friend or family, was widespread and reported by patients at all stages of cancer care, from early investigations to follow up after treatment. Patients used the internet to find second opinions, seek support and experiential information from other patients, interpret symptoms, seek information about tests and treatments, help interpret consultations, identify questions for doctors, make anonymous private inquiries, and raise awareness of the cancer. Patients also used it to check their doctors' advice covertly and to develop an expertise in their cancer. This expertise, reflecting familiarity with computer technology and medical terms, enabled patients to present a new type of "social fitness."
conclusionCancer patients used the internet for a wide range of information and support needs, many of which are unlikely to be met through conventional health care. Serious illness often undermines people's self image as a competent member of society. Cancer patients may use the internet to acquire expertise to display competence in the face of serious illness.
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.