Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36729577›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Internet Use for Obtaining Medicine Information: Cross-sectional Survey.

Trine Strand Bergmo, Vilde Sandsdalen, Unn Sollid Manskow, Lars Småbrekke, Marit Waaseth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 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. Article
  10. To trust or not to trust: evaluating the reliability and safety of AI responses to laryngeal cancer queries.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  11. ChatGPT vs. web search for patient questions: what does ChatGPT do better?European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Trine Strand BergmoNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9580-7688
Vilde SandsdalenDepartment of Pharmacy, UiT The Artic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4974-8031
Unn Sollid ManskowNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8299-4285
Lars SmåbrekkeDepartment of Pharmacy, UiT The Artic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6475-3368
Marit WaasethDepartment of Pharmacy, UiT The Artic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1318-3972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe internet is increasingly being used as a source of medicine-related information. People want information to facilitate decision-making and self-management, and they tend to prefer the internet for ease of access. However, it is widely acknowledged that the quality of web-based information varies. Poor interpretation of medicine information can lead to anxiety and poor adherence to drug therapy. It is therefore important to understand how people search, select, and trust medicine information.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to establish the extent of internet use for seeking medicine information among Norwegian pharmacy customers, analyze factors associated with internet use, and investigate the level of trust in different sources and websites.

methodsThis is a cross-sectional study with a convenience sample of pharmacy customers recruited from all but one community pharmacy in Tromsø, a medium size municipality in Norway (77,000 inhabitants). Persons (aged ≥16 years) able to complete a questionnaire in Norwegian were asked to participate in the study. The recruitment took place in September and October 2020. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, social media was also used to recruit medicine users.

resultsA total of 303 respondents reported which sources they used to obtain information about their medicines (both prescription and over the counter) and to what extent they trusted these sources. A total of 125 (41.3%) respondents used the internet for medicine information, and the only factor associated with internet use was age. The odds of using the internet declined by 5% per year of age (odds ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.97; P=.048). We found no association between internet use and gender, level of education, or regular medicine use. The main purpose reported for using the internet was to obtain information about side effects. Other main sources of medicine information were physicians (n=191, 63%), pharmacy personnel (n=142, 47%), and medication package leaflets (n=124, 42%), while 36 (12%) respondents did not obtain medicine information from any sources. Note that 272 (91%) respondents trusted health professionals as a source of medicine information, whereas 58 (46%) respondents who used the internet trusted the information they found on the internet. The most reliable websites were the national health portals and other official health information sites.

conclusionsNorwegian pharmacy customers use the internet as a source of medicine information, but most still obtain medicine information from health professionals and packet leaflets. People are aware of the potential for misinformation on websites, and they mainly trust high-quality sites run by health authorities.

Indexed as

credibilitycrediblecross-sectionaleHealthhealth informationinformation behaviorinformation retrievalinformation scienceinformation seekinginternetmedicationmedicine informationmisinformationpatient educationpharmaceuticalpharmacistpharmacysurveytrustweb-based information

Identifiers

PMID36729577
PMCPMC9936360

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.