Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28069667›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2017

From loquacious to reticent: understanding patient health information communication to guide consumer health IT design.

Rupa S Valdez, Thomas M Guterbock, Kara Fitzgibbon, Ishan C Williams, Claire A Wellbeloved-Stone, Jaime E Bears, Hannah K Menefee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Designing for caregiving networks: a case study of primary caregivers of children with medical complexity.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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.

Rupa S ValdezCenter for Survey Research, Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Thomas M GuterbockCenter for Survey Research, Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Kara FitzgibbonCenter for Survey Research, Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Ishan C WilliamsSchool of Nursing, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Claire A Wellbeloved-StoneDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Jaime E BearsDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Hannah K MenefeeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and significanceIt is increasingly recognized that some patients self-manage in the context of social networks rather than alone. Consumer health information technology (IT) designed to support socially embedded self-management must be responsive to patients' everyday communication practices. There is an opportunity to improve consumer health IT design by explicating how patients currently leverage social media to support health information communication.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to determine types of health information communication patterns that typify Facebook users with chronic health conditions to guide consumer health IT design. MATERIALS AND

methodsSeven hundred participants with type 2 diabetes were recruited through a commercial survey access panel. Cluster analysis was used to identify distinct approaches to health information communication both on and off Facebook. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods were used to identify demographic and behavioral differences among profiles. Secondary analysis of qualitative interviews ( n  = 25) and analysis of open-ended survey questions were conducted to understand participant rationales for each profile.

resultsOur analysis yielded 7 distinct health information communication profiles. Five of 7 profiles had consistent patterns both on and off Facebook, while the remaining 2 demonstrated distinct practices, with no health information communication on Facebook but some off Facebook. One profile was distinct from all others in both health information communication practices and demographic composition. Rationales for following specific health information communication practices were categorized under 6 themes: altruism, instrumental support, social support, privacy and stigma, convenience, and Facebook knowledge.

conclusionFacebook has been widely adopted for health information communication; This study demonstrates that Facebook has been widely adopted for health information communication. It also shows that the ways in which patients communicate health information on and off Facebook are diverse.

Indexed as

CommunicationConsumer Health InformationDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Social MediaAdultAgedAnalysis of VarianceCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMedical InformaticsMiddle AgedSelf-ManagementSocial Networking

Identifiers

PMID28069667
PMCPMC7651950

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.