Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21968629›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2012

Internet and e-mail use in ENT: a survey of patient usage and satisfaction.

B Shaw, A Farboud, A Trinidade, P Kothari

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

B ShawUniversity College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
A Farboud
A Trinidade
P Kothari

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, internet and e-mail are important modes of communication and information. This paper seeks to determine internet usage as a source of health information amongst ENT patients and to investigate whether patients prefer to communicate primarily with the hospital via e-mail. The method used is a questionnaire study and 201 patients attending an ENT clinic completed questionnaires over 2 weeks in December 2010. Of those with internet access (85%), 37% had used it for health information prior to their appointment; 90% rated the information between average and excellent; over half stated they would like doctor-recommended websites. Overall, 8% had previously used e-mail to communicate with healthcare professionals, but 50% stated that they wished to use e-mail in the future. ENT patients are becoming increasingly computer-literate. As healthcare professionals, we must do more to incorporate the internet as a source of reliable healthcare information. Properly implemented, e-mail can become an invaluable method of communication with patients.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesOtolaryngologySurveys and QuestionnairesElectronic MailFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionRetrospective StudiesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.