Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16597816›Full record

ArticlePostgraduate medical journal2006

Assessment of internet use and effects among healthcare professionals: a cross sectional survey.

V K Podichetty, J Booher, M Whitfield, R S Biscup

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Postgraduate medical journal, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

V K PodichettySpine Research and Education, Cleveland Clinic Florida, USA. podichv@ccf.org
J Booher
M Whitfield
R S Biscup

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSeveral studies have explored the scientific platforms on patient use of the internet for health information. In contrast physicians' perspective on evolving internet environment is lacking. The purpose of this study is to assess and correlate the extent of internet use among healthcare professionals and examine its effects on clinical practice.

methodsCross sectional survey conducted in the USA using questionnaires distributed randomly to healthcare professionals attending distinct continuing medical education programmes between 2003 and 2004. Multiple choice and yes/no questions related to the trends of internet use and its effects on clinical practice were extracted and responses analysed. The main outcome measures are self reported rates of internet use, perceived effects, and the role of medical web sites in clinical practice.

resultsThe overall response rate was 60%. A total of 277 survey respondents (97%) had internet access. Some 7% in private practice and 1% of group practice physicians did not have internet access. Most (71%) used the internet regularly for medical or professional updating and 62% (n = 178) felt the need for sharing web sites designed for healthcare professionals with patients. Some 27% of the physicians currently own established personal practice web sites. Sixty three per cent have recommended a web site to a patient for more information, matching the positive trust (>70%) on the general quality of selected medical web sites.

conclusionThis cross sectional survey shows that internet use and web based medical information is widely popular among physicians and patients. About 23%-31% of the healthcare professionals report >80% interaction with web informed patients in their daily practice.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInformation ServicesInternetMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID16597816
PMCPMC2579634

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.