ArticleJMIR nursing
Primary Health Care Nurses' Experiences of Consultations With Internet-Informed Patients: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physician Perspectives on Internet-Informed Patients: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- eHealth Literacy and Health-Related Internet Use Among Swedish Primary Health Care Visitors: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Qualitative Research Studies Addressing Patient-Practitioner Communication about Online Health Information.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Exploring clinician perceptions of a care pathway for the management of shoulder pain: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost people in modern societies now use the Internet to obtain health-related information. By giving patients knowledge, digital health information is considered to increase patient involvement and patient-centered interactions in health care. However, concerns are raised about the varying quality of health-related websites and low health literacy in the population. There is a gap in the current knowledge of nurses' experiences with Internet-informed patients.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to explore primary health care nurses' experiences of consultations with patients who present health-related information from the Internet.
methodsThis is a qualitative study based on interviews with 9 primary health care nurses. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results are reported according to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research guidelines.
resultsThe phenomenon of Internet-informed patients was considered to change the usual rules in health care, affecting attributes and actions of patients, patterns of interactions in consultations, and roles of nurses and patients. Three categories were identified: (1) Facing the downsides of Googling, (2) Patients as main actors, and (3) Nurse role challenged. Although the benefits of health-related Internet information were described, its negative consequences were emphasized overall. The problems were mainly ascribed to inaccurate Internet information and patients' inability to effectively manage the information.
conclusionsOur study suggests ambivalent attitudes among nurses toward health-related Internet information. In order to promote equitable care in the digital era, increased awareness in health care about useful strategies for overcoming the difficulties and embracing the benefits of conferring with Internet-informed patients seems to be a legitimate goal.
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.