ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Clinician Recommendations for Discussing Online Health Information With Adolescents: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinician Perspectives on Commonly Used Online Sexual and Reproductive Health Resources for Adolescents: Qualitative Analysis.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
objectivesAdolescents frequently encounter online health information (OHI). We aimed to synthesize clinician recommendations for engaging adolescents about OHI during clinical encounters.
methodsUnited States clinicians with expertise in adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) participated in virtual semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods to generate descriptive themes.
resultsTwenty-four clinicians from all U.S. regions participated. Participants emphasized the importance of addressing OHI given its accessibility, ubiquity, broad topical relevance (eg, SRH, nutrition, vaccines), and variable health impacts (ie, positive and negative). Clinicians described 4 entry points for discussion: patient initiation, screening, topic-specific conversations, and resource provision. They suggested strategies to build digital literacy (eg, assessing content creator motivations) and health literacy (eg, contextualizing population risks without dismissing personal anecdotes). Communication approaches included acknowledging partial truths before providing medical context and avoiding blanket dismissal of online content. Clinicians advised against directly labeling patients' claims as "misinformation," recommending instead more neutral, patient-friendly language.
conclusionsAs clinicians increasingly navigate OHI in practice, these expert recommendations can help support digital and health literacy while fostering trust and improving adolescent-clinician communication.
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.