Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31518244›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2018

Informal Caregivers' Use of Internet-Based Health Resources: An Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey.

Kelly M Shaffer, Philip I Chow, Wendy F Cohn, Karen S Ingersoll, Lee M Ritterband

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Barosinusitis due to routine weather changes: A cross-sectional analysis of public websites.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Kelly M ShafferDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9749-8006
Philip I ChowCenter for Behavioral Health & Technology, Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1147-1145
Wendy F CohnDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4351-8497
Karen S IngersollCenter for Behavioral Health & Technology, Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8115-2548
Lee M RitterbandCenter for Behavioral Health & Technology, Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7624-5213

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Psychosocial Palliative & Community Research in CancerT32CA009461 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JENNIFER L HAY, Jamie S. Ostroff · 1985 to 2026
$10.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformal caregivers express strong interest in technology innovations to help them in their caregiving role; however, divides across sociodemographic characteristics in internet and technology access may preclude the most vulnerable caregivers from accessing such resources.

objectiveThis study aims to examine caregivers' internet use, both generally and for seeking health-related information, and whether usage differs as a function of caregivers' characteristics.

methodsData were analyzed from the Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 1. Participants were included in analyses if they self-identified as providing uncompensated care to a close individual. Caregivers reported internet use factors, age, education, rurality, general health, distress, and objective caregiving burden. We used chi-square tests of independence with jackknife variance estimation to compare whether internet use factors differed by caregivers' characteristics.

resultsA total of 77.5% (303/391) caregivers surveyed reported ever using the internet. Of internet users, 88.1% (267/303) accessed from a home computer and 83.2% (252/303) from a mobile device. Most caregivers accessed health information for themselves (286/391, 73.1%) or others (264/391, 67.5%); fewer communicated with a doctor over the Web (148/391, 37.9%) or had a wellness app (171/391, 43.7%). Caregivers reporting younger age, more education, and good health were more likely to endorse any of these activities. Furthermore, two-thirds of caregivers (258/391, 66.0%) endorsed trust in health information from the internet.

conclusionsComputers and mobile devices are practical platforms for disseminating caregiving-related information and supportive services to informal caregivers; these modalities may, however, have a more limited reach to caregivers who are older, have less education, and are in poorer health.

Indexed as

caregivershealth educationinformation disseminationinternetmobile phoneuncompensated care

Identifiers

PMID31518244
PMCPMC6715019

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.