Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34554104›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2021

Factors Affecting Engagement in Web-Based Health Care Patient Information: Narrative Review of the Literature.

Liam Alperen Oktay, Eyad Abuelgasim, Aida Abdelwahed, Nour Houbby, Smaragda Lampridou, Pasha Normahani, Nicholas Peters, Usman Jaffer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A review, evaluation and content mapping study of Australian patient-facing online pancreatobiliary cancer resources.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Liam Alperen OktayImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8025-5542
Eyad AbuelgasimImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2092-2726
Aida AbdelwahedImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4729-8399
Nour HoubbyImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6865-4682
Smaragda LampridouImperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6700-1687
Pasha NormahaniImperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6362-7535
Nicholas PetersImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3581-8078
Usman JafferImperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2368-7496

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based content is rapidly becoming the primary source of health care information. There is a pressing need for web-based health care content to not only be accurate but also be engaging. Improved engagement of people with web-based health care content has the potential to inform as well as influence behavioral change to enable people to make better health care choices. The factors associated with better engagement with web-based health care content have previously not been considered.

objectiveThe aims of this study are to identify the factors that affect engagement with web-based health care content and develop a framework to be considered when creating such content.

methodsA comprehensive search of the PubMed and MEDLINE database was performed from January 1, 1946, to January 5, 2020. The reference lists of all included studies were also searched. The Medical Subject Headings database was used to derive the following keywords: "patient information," "online," "internet," "web," and "content." All studies in English pertaining to the factors affecting engagement in web-based health care patient information were included. No restrictions were set on the study type. Analysis of the themes arising from the results was performed using inductive content analysis.

resultsThe search yielded 814 articles, of which 56 (6.9%) met our inclusion criteria. The studies ranged from observational and noncontrolled studies to quasi-experimental studies. Overall, there was significant heterogeneity in the types of interventions and outcome assessments, which made quantitative assessment difficult. Consensus among all authors of this study resulted in six categories that formed the basis of a framework to assess the factors affecting engagement in web-based health care content: easy to understand, support, adaptability, accessibility, visuals and content, and credibility and completeness.

conclusionsThere is a paucity of high-quality data relating to the factors that improve the quality of engagement with web-based health care content. Our framework summarizes the reported studies, which may be useful to health care content creators. An evaluation of the utility of web-based content to engage users is of significant importance and may be accessible through tools such as the Net Promoter score. Web 3.0 technology and development of the field of psychographics for health care offer further potential for development. Future work may also involve improvement of the framework through a co-design process.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareInternetHumansinternetmobile phonepatient educationpatient engagementweb-based health information

Identifiers

PMID34554104
PMCPMC8498891

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.