Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15998613›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2005

Cancer patients' self-reported attitudes about the Internet.

Sheryl P LaCoursiere, M Tish Knobf, Ruth McCorkle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cancer Center Website Rankings in the USA: Expanding Benchmarks and Standards for Effective Public Outreach and Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Is nicotine replacement therapy overvalued in smoking cessation? Analysis of smokers' and quitters' communication in social media.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

3 authors.

Sheryl P LaCoursiereCenter for Excellence in Chronic Illness Care, Yale University School of Nursing, New Haven, CT 06536-0740, USA. sheryl.lacoursiere@yale.edu
M Tish Knobf
Ruth McCorkle

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing numbers of cancer patients are using the Internet, but little is known about their attitudes toward online health care.

objectiveThe purpose of this substudy was to analyze cancer patients' attitudes toward online health care.

methodsThis was a substudy of 41 persons with cancer who used the Internet for health care information and support and who completed the Attitudes Toward Online Health Care (ATOHC) survey.

resultsThe majority of study participants were married, held graduate degrees, and had high incomes. Using a five-point Likert scale, means for the five dimensions of the ATOHC survey were as follows: community and news 3.22 (SD = 1.01), outcomes 3.20 (SD = 1.08), trusted information and advice 2.73 (SD = 0.66), self-efficacy in evaluating information and intention 3.46 (SD = 0.65), and disclosure 3.15 (SD = 1.06). The average response fell between "About half the time" and "Usually." Favorite websites for content were Medscape and WebMD, while favorite sites for support were WebMD and Mediconsult.

conclusionsRespondents were generally eager to obtain and offer cancer information and support online, but they were skeptical of unknown sources. They were comfortable both giving and receiving information and support. Respondents were interested in the experiences of other patients and benefited by their direct and indirect interactions with them. Respondents felt that they coped better with their illness and experienced less uncertainty and anxiety as a result of their online experiences. They reported a certain level of trust, primarily for established reputable sources of information, and they were confident in their ability to evaluate the information, including research reports. In addition, cancer patients displayed a healthy skepticism when presented with the option of divulging their personal health information; however, they were willing to provide personal details if, as a result, a website provided them with individualized information.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthInternetEducational StatusFemaleHumansIncomeMaleNeoplasmsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID15998613
PMCPMC1550663

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.