ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2015
Patient perspectives on online health information and communication with doctors: a qualitative study of patients 50 years old and over.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 12 of them syntheses 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
91 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Online Information on Lymphedema: Systematic Review of the Quality of Online Patient Resources.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Pooled it
- Quality assessment of online patient information on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Pooled it
- Physician Perspectives on Internet-Informed Patients: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Inguinal hernia repair: a systematic analysis of online patient information using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2022Pooled it
- The Effect of Online Health Information Seeking on Physician-Patient Relationships: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients Tool to Assess Patient Information on Appendicitis Websites: Systematic Search and Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- A mixed methods systematic review of the effects of patient online self-diagnosing in the 'smart-phone society' on the healthcare professional-patient relationship and medical authority.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Pooled it
- COVID-19 prevention and treatment information on the internet: a systematic analysis and quality assessment.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Consumer Evaluation of the Quality of Online Health Information: Systematic Literature Review of Relevant Criteria and Indicators.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Trust and Credibility in Web-Based Health Information: A Review and Agenda for Future Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Pooled it
- Internet Health Information Seeking and the Patient-Physician Relationship: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Impact of a Knowledge Translation Intervention on Physical Activity and Mobility in Older Adults (the Move4Age Study): Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Evaluation of an online knowledge translation intervention to promote cancer risk reduction behaviours: findings from a randomized controlled trial.BMC cancer · 2019Trial
- A Mobility-Focused Knowledge Translation Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve Physical Activity: Process Evaluation of the Move4Age Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- Rewriting Doom: Serial Pathways from eHealth Use to Reduced Cancer Fatalism in Family Cancer History Groups.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Seeking But Not Discussing Online Health Information With Physicians: Cross-Sectional Survey Study of eHealth Literacy-Empowerment Profiles and Patient-Centered Communication.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Interplay Between Self-Determination and Cognitive Bias: Nonlinear Associations Between Myopia Control Knowledge Reserve and Parental Communication Preparedness.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Developing and Validating a User-Friendly Quality Benchmark: Enhancing the Integrity of Online Health Information for Patients and Clinicians.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Google Search Analytics for Lateral Epicondylitis.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs health care systems around the world shift toward models that emphasize self-care management, there is increasing pressure for patients to obtain health information online. It is critical that patients are able to identify potential problems with using the Internet to diagnose and treat a health issue and that they feel comfortable communicating with their doctor about the health information they acquire from the Internet.
objectiveOur aim was to examine patient-identified (1) problems with using the Internet to identify and treat a health issue, (2) barriers to communication with a doctor about online health information seeking, and (3) facilitators of communication with a doctor about patient searches for health information on the Internet.
methodsFor this qualitative exploratory study, semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of 56 adults age 50 years old and over. General concerns regarding use of the Internet to diagnose and treat a health issue were examined separately for participants based on whether they had ever discussed health information obtained through the Internet with a doctor. Discussions about barriers to and facilitators of communication about patient searches for health information on the Internet with a doctor were analyzed using thematic analysis.
resultsSix higher-level general concerns emerged: (1) limitations in own ability, (2) credibility/limitations of online information, (3) anxiety, (4) time consumption, (5) conflict, and (6) non-physical harm. The most prevalent concern raised by participants who communicated with a doctor about their online health information seeking related to the credibility or limitations in online information. Participants who had never communicated with a doctor about their online health information seeking most commonly reported concerns about non-physical harm. Four barriers to communication emerged: (1) concerns about embarrassment, (2) concerns that the doctor doesn't want to hear about it, (3) belief that there is no need to bring it up, and (4) forgetting to bring it up. Facilitators of communication included: (1) having a family member present at doctor visits, (2) doctor-initiated inquiries, and (3) encountering an advertisement that suggested talking with a doctor.
conclusionsOverall, participants displayed awareness of potential problems related to online health information seeking. Findings from this study point to a set of barriers as well as facilitators of communication about online health information seeking between patients and doctors. This study highlights the need for enhanced patient communication skills, eHealth literacy assessments that are accompanied by targeted resources pointing individuals to high-quality credible online health information, and the need to remind patients of the importance of consulting a medical professional when they use online health resources to diagnose and treat a health issue.
Indexed as
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.