ArticleEcancermedicalscience2011
Online information needs of cancer patients and their organizations.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The waiting room of uncertainty: digital patient support for potentially bad news-a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Assessing Self-Help Orientation Among German Rehabilitation Clinics: Website Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Needs of Patients With Gynecologic Cancer and Their Caregivers for Obtaining mHealth-Supported Self-Management: Focus Group Study.JMIR cancer · 2024Article
- Exploring how members of the public access and use health research and information: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Assessment of Lung Cancer YouTube Videos for Patient Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Article
- Assessment of online patient education material for eye cancers: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Web-based nutrition: a useful resource for cancer patients?Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Review
- Patients With Cancer Searching for Cancer- or Health-Specific Web-Based Information: Performance Test Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Preferences in trust regarding the provision of cancer information among adults.Journal of the National Medical Association · 2021Article
- An online review of informational sources for advanced or high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Review
- Full Radiology Report through Patient Web Portal: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
- Caregivers of cancer patients: what are their information-seeking behaviours and resource preferences?Ecancermedicalscience · 2020Article
- Evaluation Breast Cancer Information on The Internet in Arabic.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- Quality, Readability, and Understandability of German Booklets Addressing Melanoma Patients.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- Patient Attitudes and Their Awareness Towards Skin Cancer-Related Apps: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Development of a Rating Tool for Mobile Cancer Apps: Information Analysis and Formal and Content-Related Evaluation of Selected Cancer Apps.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- The extent to which cancer patients trust in cancer-related online information: a systematic review.PeerJ · 2019Article
- Exploring the Most Visible German Websites on Melanoma Immunotherapy: A Web-Based Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasingly patients, relatives and carers are accessing health information via the internet. However, the health profession and people affected by cancer are becoming concerned with the quality of that information. A European survey was conducted under the auspices of the FP7 European Commission funded Eurocancercoms project during the period September 2010-March 2011. Its aim was to assess current online information needs of people with cancer particularly those who seek information using online social media technologies and the internet more broadly. A literature review was undertaken to gain a greater understanding of health seeking behaviour regarding cancer patients' information needs and patient preferences for accessing different formats and media. This was used to inform the design and validation of online pan-European, multi-lingual questionnaires distributed via patient organizations and via specific Eurocancercoms partner organizations. This paper presents the results of this survey and suggests recommendations to be incorporated into the design of the online platform, ecancerHub, one of the intended outcomes of the Eurocancercoms project following this research. People want a wide variety of easy to find, easy to understand accurate information about cancer and how it is likely to impact on their everyday lives and on those close to them. They differ in the amount and detail of the information they would like and on their ability to identify quality information and understand it sufficiently to base their health-care decisions on. The majority of respondents raised the issue of quality of information and many requested recommendations of websites by the people who usually influence them most, the health professionals involved in their care.
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.