Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20511179›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2010

Patient and parent views on a Web 2.0 Diabetes Portal--the management tool, the generator, and the gatekeeper: qualitative study.

Sam Nordfeldt, Lena Hanberger, Carina Berterö

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

3 authors.

Sam NordfeldtCenter for Medical Technology Assessment, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. sam.nordfeldt@liu.se
Lena Hanberger
Carina Berterö

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Internet has undergone rapid development, with significant impact on social life and on modes of communication. Modern management of type 1 diabetes requires that patients have access to continuous support and learning opportunities. Although Web 2.0 resources can provide this support, few pediatric clinics offer it as part of routine diabetes care.

objectiveWe aimed to explore patients' and parents' attitudes toward a local Web 2.0 portal tailored to young patients with type 1 diabetes and their parents, with social networking tools such as message boards and blogs, locally produced self-care and treatment information, and interactive pedagogic devices. Opportunities and obstacles to the implementation of Web 2.0 applications in clinical practice were sought.

methodsParticipants were 16 mothers, 3 fathers, and 5 young patients (ages 11-18 years; median 14 years) who each wrote an essay on their experience using the portal, irrespective of frequency and/or their success in using it. Two main guiding questions were asked. A qualitative content analysis was conducted of the essays as a whole.

resultsThree main categories of portal users' attitudes were found; we named them "the management tool," "the generator," and "the gatekeeper." One category was related to the management tool functionality of the portal, and a wide range of concrete examples was found regarding useful facts and updates. Being enabled to search when necessary and find reliable information provided by local clinicians was regarded as a great advantage, facilitating a feeling of security and being in control. Finding answers to difficult-to-ask questions, questions portal users did not know they had before, and questions focusing on sensitive areas such as anxiety and fear, was also an important feature. A second category was related to the generator function in that visiting the portal could generate more information than expected, which could lead to increased use. Active message boards and chat rooms were found to have great value for enhancing mediation of third party peer-to-peer information. A certain level of active users from peer families and visible signs of their activity were considered necessary to attract returning users. A third category was related to the gatekeeper function of the password requirement, which created various access problems. This and other unsuccessful experiences caused users to drop the portal. A largely open portal was suggested to enhance use by those associated with the child with diabetes, such as school personnel, relatives, friends and others, and also by young users somewhat unwilling to self-identify with the disease.

conclusionsWeb 2.0 services have great potential for supporting parents and patients with type 1 diabetes by enhancing their information retrieval and disease management. Well-developed services, such as this one, may generate continued use and should, therefore, be carefully maintained and updated by health care professionals who are alert and active on the site with new information and updates. Login procedures should be simple and minimized as much as possible. The education of clinical practitioners regarding the use of Web 2.0 resources needs more attention.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInternetOnline SystemsAdolescentAdultChildCommunicationComputer SecurityDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FamilyFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMaleMiddle AgedParents

Identifiers

PMID20511179
PMCPMC2956228

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.