Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18283559›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2008

Cancer and the computerized family: towards a clinical ethics of "indirect" Internet use.

Christian Simon, Sarah Schramm

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. The role of the Internet in supporting and informing carers of people with cancer: a literature review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2010
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Patient interest in recording family histories of cancer via the Internet.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2008
    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

2 authors.

Christian SimonDepartment of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106-4976, USA. cxs66@case.edu
Sarah Schramm

Funding

NCI NIH HHS CA108457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The normative dimensions of Internet use among patients and their families have not been studied in much depth in the field of clinical ethics. This study considers cancer-related Internet use among families and friends of cancer patients, and how that use of the Internet may affect patients and patient care. Interviews were conducted with 120 cancer patients, most of whom (76%) reported that family, friends, and others in their social network used the Internet in some way related to the patient's cancer. Many patients (73%) did not request this online help from their social networks, yet found it helpful and comforting nonetheless. Other patients were less positive about the helpfulness of the online efforts of friends and relatives. A significant proportion of patients (39%) also felt that the online information they received was prescreened or edited in some way. Very few patients recalled that their clinicians ever discussed these and other issues with them. The study illustrates that indirect Internet use is a central feature of the cancer experience. In contrast to other literature in this area, the study suggests that indirect Internet use may have normatively positive and negative implications for patients. These implications point towards the importance of studying and understanding indirect Internet use-and Internet use in general-in the field of clinical ethics.

Indexed as

CommunicationEthics, ClinicalFamilyFriendsNeoplasmsCaregiversConsumer Health InformationFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

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.