Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21990571›Full record

ArticleHealth education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education2012

Internet use for prediagnosis symptom appraisal by colorectal cancer patients.

Maria D Thomson, Laura A Siminoff, Daniel R Longo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Incorporating patient and family preferences into evidence-based medicine.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Article
  7. Review
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.

Maria D ThomsonVirginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298, USA. mthomson2@vcu.edu
Laura A Siminoff
Daniel R Longo

Funding

Appraisal and Diagnostic Delay in Colon CancerR01CA124607 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI THOMSON, MARIA D. · 2008 to 2012
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA124607NCI NIH HHS R01-CA124607
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study explored the characteristics of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who accessed Internet-based health information as part of their symptom appraisal process prior to consulting a health care provider.

methodNewly diagnosed CRC patients who experienced symptoms prior to diagnosis were interviewed. Brief COPE was used to measure patient coping. Logistic and linear regressions were used to assess Internet use and appraisal delay.

resultsTwenty-five percent of the sample (61/242) consulted the Internet prior to visiting a health care provider. Internet use was associated with having private health insurance (odds ratio [OR] = 2.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-5.43) and experiencing elimination symptoms (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.14-1.80) and was marginally associated with age (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.93-0.99). Internet use was not related to delayed medical care seeking.

conclusionInternet use did not influence decisions to seek medical care. The Internet provided a preliminary information resource for individuals who experienced embarrassing CRC symptoms, had private health insurance, and were younger.

Indexed as

Information Seeking BehaviorPatient ParticipationAdultAgedColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansInsurance, HealthInternetLogistic ModelsMaleMedical AuditMiddle AgedOhioPatient Acceptance of Health CareQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID21990571
PMCPMC3521844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.