ReviewJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2011
Consumer language, patient language, and thesauri: a review of the literature.
Review in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Authentic collaboration in research: partnering with people with lived experience.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Multiple-Perspective Data-Driven Analysis of Online Health Communities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Characterizing terminology applied by authors and database producers to informatics literature on consumer engagement with wearable devices.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Factors Influencing Motivation and Engagement in Mobile Health Among Patients With Sickle Cell Disease in Low-Prevalence, High-Income Countries: Qualitative Exploration of Patient Requirements.JMIR human factors · 2020Article
- Article
- Aspiring to Unintended Consequences of Natural Language Processing: A Review of Recent Developments in Clinical and Consumer-Generated Text Processing.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Review
- Beyond readability: investigating coherence of clinical text for consumers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOnline social networking sites are web services in which users create public or semipublic profiles and connect to build online communities, finding like-minded people through self-labeled personal attributes including ethnicity, leisure interests, political beliefs, and, increasingly, health status. Thirty-nine percent of patients in the United States identified themselves as users of social networks in a recent survey. "Tags," user-generated descriptors functioning as labels for user-generated content, are increasingly important to social networking, and the language used by patients is thus becoming important for knowledge representation in these systems. However, patient language poses considerable challenges for health communication and networking. How have information systems traditionally incorporated these languages in their controlled vocabularies and thesauri? How do system builders know what consumers and patients say?
methodsThis comprehensive review of the literature of health care (PubMed MEDLINE, CINAHL), library science, and information science (Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts, and Library Literature) examines the research domains in which consumer and patient language has been explored.
resultsConsumer contributions to controlled vocabulary appear to be seriously under-researched inside and outside of health care.
conclusionThe author reflects on the implications of these findings for online social networks devoted to patients and the patient experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.