Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24923652›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2014

Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities.

Douglas J Rupert, Rebecca R Moultrie, Jennifer Gard Read, Jacqueline B Amoozegar, Alexandra S Bornkessel, Amie C O'Donoghue, Helen W Sullivan

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 153 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Patient-Provider Discussions About Online Health Information in the Health Information National Trends Survey.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Douglas J RupertCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. Electronic address: drupert@rti.org.
Rebecca R MoultrieCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Jennifer Gard ReadCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Jacqueline B AmoozegarSocial and Health Organizational Research and Evaluation Program, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Alexandra S BornkesselCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Amie C O'DonoghueOffice of Prescription Drug Promotion, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Helen W SullivanOffice of Prescription Drug Promotion, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
RTI International · USCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

Intramural FDA HHS FD999999PHS HHS HHSF223200910199G
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMany Internet users seek health information through online health communities (OHCs) and other social media. Yet few studies assess how individuals use peer-generated health information, and many healthcare providers (HCPs) believe OHCs interfere with patient-provider relationships. This study explored how individuals use OHC content in clinical discussions and how HCPs react to it.

methodsWe conducted in-person and virtual focus groups with patients/caregivers who visited OHCs (n=89). A trained moderator asked about reasons for membership, sharing OHC content with providers, HCP reactions, and preferred roles for HCPs. Two researchers independently coded verbatim transcripts (NVivo 9.2) and conducted thematic response analysis.

resultsParticipants described OHCs as supplementing information from HCPs, whom they perceived as too busy for detailed discussions. Almost all participants shared OHC content with HCPs, although only half cited OHCs as the source. Most HCPs reacted negatively to OHC content, making participants feel disempowered. Despite these reactions, participants continued to use OHCs, and most desired HCP feedback on the accuracy of OHC content.

conclusionsIndividuals do not use OHCs to circumvent HCPs but instead to gather more in-depth information. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: HCPs should discuss OHC content with patients to help them avoid misinformation and make more informed decisions.

Indexed as

Information Seeking BehaviorInternetProfessional-Patient RelationsSocial MediaAdolescentAdultAgedCaregiversCommunicationFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPerceptionOnline communitiesPatient–provider communicationShared decision makingSocial media

Identifiers

PMID24923652
PMCPMC7325560
OpenAlexW1967928398

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.