Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21846635›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2011

Managing the personal side of health: how patient expertise differs from the expertise of clinicians.

Andrea Hartzler, Wanda Pratt

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed
23.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 269 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Peer Mentors for People with Advanced Cancer: Lessons Learnt from Recruiting and Training Peer Mentors for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Web-based dental care information resources for patients with head and neck cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea HartzlerDivision of Biomedical and Health Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States. andreah@uw.edu
Wanda Pratt
University of Washington · US

Funding

Managing Health Information in Your LifeR01LM009143 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI PRATT, WANDA · 2007 to 2009
$1.5M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009143
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen patients need health information to manage their personal health, they turn to both health professionals and other patients. Yet, we know little about how the information exchanged among patients (ie, patient expertise) contrasts with the information offered by health professionals (ie, clinician expertise). Understanding how patients' experiential expertise contrasts with the medical expertise of health professionals is necessary to inform the design of peer-support tools that meet patients' needs, particularly with the growing prevalence of largely unguided advice sharing through Internet-based social software.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to enhance our understanding of patient expertise and to inform the design of peer-support tools. We compared the characteristics of patient expertise with that of clinician expertise for breast cancer.

methodsThrough a comparative content analysis of topics discussed and recommendations offered in Internet message boards and books, we contrasted the topic, form, and style of expertise shared in sources of patient expertise with sources of clinician expertise.

resultsPatient expertise focused on strategies for coping with day-to-day personal health issues gained through trial and error of the lived experience; thus, it was predominately personal in topic. It offered a wealth of actionable advice that was frequently expressed through the narrative style of personal stories about managing responsibilities and activities associated with family, friends, work, and the home during illness. In contrast, clinician expertise was carried through a prescriptive style and focused on explicit facts and opinions that tied closely to the health care delivery system, biomedical research, and health professionals' work. These differences were significant between sources of patient expertise and sources of clinician expertise in topic (P < .001), form (P < .001), and style (P < .001).

conclusionPatients offer other patients substantial expertise that differs significantly from the expertise offered by health professionals. Our findings suggest that experienced patients do not necessarily serve as "amateur doctors" who offer more accessible but less comprehensive or detailed medical information. Rather, they offer valuable personal information that clinicians cannot necessarily provide. The characteristics of patient expertise and the resulting design implications that we identified will help informaticians enhance the design of peer-support tools that will help meet patients' diverse information needs.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient PreferenceSick RoleSocial SupportAdaptation, PsychologicalAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCaregiversCommunicationFemaleHumansInterpersonal RelationsMiddle AgedProblem SolvingQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID21846635
PMCPMC3222167
OpenAlexW2128559207

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.