Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30912748›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Peer Adoption and Development of Health Innovations by Patients: National Representative Study of 6204 Citizens.

Pedro Oliveira, Leid Zejnilovic, Salomé Azevedo, Ana Maria Rodrigues, Helena Canhão

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Understanding Co-Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient-Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Pedro OliveiraCopenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3898-2623
Leid ZejnilovicNova School of Business and Economics, Nova University, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4209-4637
Salomé AzevedoCatólica-Lisbon School of Business and Economics, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-1234-9464
Ana Maria RodriguesCEDOC, EpiDoC Unit, Nova Medical School, Nova University, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2046-8017
Helena CanhãoCEDOC, EpiDoC Unit, Nova Medical School, Nova University, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-1894-4870

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing evidence that many patients and caregivers innovate by developing new solutions to cope with their health disorders. Given the easy access to vast internet resources and peers globally, it is increasingly important to understand what may influence user innovation and its adoption in health for improving individual well-being and ensuring their safety, in particular, how interactions with peers and physicians or search behavior, along with sociodemographics, may influence the decision to develop a solution or adopt one developed by a peer.

objectiveThe aim of this paper was to study the development and peer-to-peer adoption of user innovations in health care and identify individual-level factors associated with these processes.

methodsData were collected via computer-assisted phone survey from a large, random, and representative sample of adult residents in Portugal (N=6204). User innovation questions were added to 1 wave of an ongoing observational, longitudinal, population-based epidemiological study. By asking about individual innovation activity, the sample was split into 3 groups: (1) the developers of health-related solutions for own use (developers), (2) the adopters of solutions developed by other patients or caregivers (peer-to-peer adopters), and (3) the rest of the population. Within the last group, intention to adopt was measured and used as a proxy of future behavior. Regression analysis is used to test the associations.

resultsIn the population considered in this paper, an estimated 1.3% (75/6008) reported having developed a solution for own use and 3.3% reported to have adopted a solution developed by peers. The 3 groups (developers, adopters, and remaining population) have distinctive characteristics. Gender plays an important role in the solution development, as women are less likely to develop one (odds ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% CI 0.20-0.81; P<.05). Education is positively associated with the development activity (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.24; P<.05) but also with the intentions to adopt a peer-developed solution. Search for health-related information is positively associated with the development, adoption, and the intentions to adopt a solution. Interactions with peers over the internet are rare, but in-person interactions are frequent and have a positive association with the dependent variables in all 3 groups. The results also suggest that trust in doctors represents an important dimension that shapes the attitudes of the population toward peer-developed solutions.

conclusionsThis paper demonstrates the importance of the peer community, doctor-patient relationship, citizen's search for information on innovation, and individual attitudes toward peer-to-peer adoption in health care. It stresses the need for a reliable Web-based health-related information and the necessity to deeper understand complex relationships between the need to improve health and fulfill the need and the perception of the health care system.

Indexed as

Peer GroupAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsYoung Adultadoptioncitizendevelopmenthealthinnovationpatientphysician-patient relationssearch enginesocial interactionstherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID30912748
PMCPMC6454339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.