ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2008
Cancer and the computerized family: towards a clinical ethics of "indirect" Internet use.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contexts and Outcomes of Proxy Online Health Information Seeking: Mixed Studies Review With Framework Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Review
- Design and process evaluation of an informative website tailored to breast cancer survivors' and intimate partners' post-treatment care needs.BMC research notes · 2012Article
- 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 · 2010Review
- Patient internet use surrounding cancer clinical trials: clinician perceptions and responses.Contemporary clinical trials · 2010Article
- Patient interest in recording family histories of cancer via the Internet.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
18283559What 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.