ArticleCadernos de saude publica2025
Consulting "Dr. Google": how the digital search for internet health information influences doctor-patient relationship.
Article in Cadernos de saude publica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Accessibility and Decision-Supportive Quality of Benign Breast Disease Articles on Chinese Hospital WeChat Public Accounts: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Online cancer forums and complementary and alternative medicine in cancer care: effects of ehealth literacy and psychological distress on use and attitudes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Large Language Models as Health Information Tools: Patient Use and Trust in Otolaryngology.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Application of the Respondent-Driven Sampling method in an online survey in Brazil: COVID-19 morbidity in the post-pandemic period.Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- The patient journey and guideline-concordant care in colorectal cancer-is current practice enough?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- 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
This study aims to evaluate the impact of the search for internet health information by patients on the doctor-patient relationship and satisfaction of both physicians and patients. In total, 200 patients of a tertiary hospital in Brazil and a convenience sample of 92 physicians were included. The questionnaires applied consisted of statements concerning the study's objective; answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale. We conducted a descriptive analysis and used nonparametric tests to verify statistical differences in perception between subgroups of interest. In this study, 85.6% of internet users searched for internet health information but were skeptical about the information they found. They were mostly positive about the doctor-patient relationship; however, they desired greater engagement in health decisions. Overall, physicians tended to have a slightly positive view about internet health information impact on patients' health despite some possible harmful effects. However, they believe that search for internet health information causes unnecessary fear and concern in patients, reduces doctor's work efficiency, and that internet health information is not accurate or reliable. The massive search for internet health information has led to significant changes in the doctor-patient communication model. Both parties have demands to be addressed: patients need more reliable information; and physicians must adapt to these changes in a way that neither diminishes their autonomy as healthcare providers nor worsens the doctor-patient relationship. Hopefully, physicians could play a central role in educating patients and indicating adequate sources of information.
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.