Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31279348›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

Patients' health literacy in relation to the preference for a general practitioner as the source of health information.

Monika Oedekoven, Wolfram J Herrmann, Clemens Ernsting, Susanne Schnitzer, Melanie Kanzler, Adelheid Kuhlmey, Paul Gellert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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.

Monika OedekovenInstitute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. monika.oedekoven@charite.de.
Wolfram J HerrmannInstitute of General Practice, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Clemens ErnstingInstitute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Susanne SchnitzerInstitute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Melanie KanzlerDeutscher Evangelischer Krankenhausverband e.V, Berlin, Germany.
Adelheid KuhlmeyInstitute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Paul GellertInstitute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science; Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor many patients, the general practitioner (GP) is the most important point of contact for obtaining information about a wide range of health topics. However, patients with different characteristics may seek health information from different sources, such as friends or the internet. The relationship between patient characteristics and preferences for information sources is understudied. We investigate which information sources are used by patients for health-related questions and how this relates to patients' sociodemographics, health, and health literacy.

methodsA stratified and population-based survey was conducted to investigate health information sources within the German population over 35 years (n = 4144). Sociodemographics, use of technology, health-related indicators, and health literacy (including self-efficacy and action planning), as well as questions regarding the ratings of multiple health-related information sources, were investigated in personal interviews and analyzed using logistic regression.

resultsIn our study, GPs were the most important source of information for the patients, followed by medical specialists, pharmacists and the internet. Patient age and number of illnesses were associated with the choice of information source. Furthermore, action planning and self-efficacy for acquiring health knowledge were associated with the selected source of information.

conclusionsInformation provider appears to be an important role for GPs, particularly among old and chronically ill patients. GPs should have the specific capabilities to fill this role and should be trained and referred to accordingly. Self-efficacy and action planning for acquiring health knowledge are important patient factors doctors can use for brief inventions during consultations.

Indexed as

General PractitionersHealth LiteracyInformation Seeking BehaviorPatient PreferenceAdultAgedFemaleGermanyHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPharmacistsSpecializationSurveys and QuestionnairesAction planningGeneral practitionerHealth literacySelf-efficacySource of health information

Identifiers

PMID31279348
PMCPMC6612068

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.