ArticlePreventing chronic disease2010
Profiles of 800,000 users of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service since the debut of online assistance, 2003-2008.
Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2010. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient ability and willingness to participate in a web-based intervention to improve hypertension control.Journal of medical Internet research · 2011Trial
- The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service: 50 years of service to the nation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Proactive Web-Based Versus Telephone-Based Information and Support: Can Electronic Platforms Deliver Effective Care for Lung Cancer Patients?JMIR research protocols · 2016Article
- Latinos and Cancer Information: Perspectives of Patients, Health Professionals and Telephone Cancer Information Specialists.Journal of health disparities research and practice · 2016Article
- Evaluation of a Personalized, Web-Based Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening.American journal of preventive medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2002, the Cancer Information Service (CIS) of the National Cancer Institute added to its toll-free telephone number 2 choices of media for access to cancer information specialists: e-mail and a proprietary online instant messaging service called LiveHelp. We sought to determine how new media users differ from telephone callers and the US population in general.
methodsDuring the 6 years since the new media were added, we collected data from more than 800,000 people who contacted CIS.
resultsTelephone calls to CIS declined while the number of LiveHelp and e-mail inquiries steadily increased. People who contacted CIS by telephone and LiveHelp were predominantly white and female and, compared with the general population, were relatively well educated. LiveHelp users were significantly younger, more educated, and more affluent than telephone callers. CIS clients asked most frequently for general cancer site information, information about treatment and side effects management, screening programs, and economic assistance. Telephone callers most often asked about breast cancer.
conclusionThe Internet has introduced new sources of health information and possibly a new type of health information seeker. With LiveHelp and e-mail, CIS is poised to meet the needs of the digital health consumer and also the traditional telephone caller.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20158959PMC2831785W50164500What 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.