Literature DB >> 11923675

Patient education on the internet: opportunities and pitfalls.

Peter F Ullrich1, Alexander R Vaccaro.   

Abstract

The Internet, an increasingly pervasive part of our culture, has vastly increased the rate at which information is disseminated. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of medical information on the Internet is false or misleading. Realizing this, many patients would like their physicians to help guide their online searches for medical information, but most physicians do not feel comfortable enough with the Internet to provide this service. A recent poll by Cyberdialogue (2000) found that 70% of all patients would like their physicians to recommend a health care web site for their condition, but that only 4% of patients receive such a recommendation. In recommending medical web sites, physicians need to consider the quality of the web site, the quality of the content, and especially the ethics of the site. The most important ethical standard a web site must meet is the clear separation of its editorial comment from promotional material. Patients do not have enough knowledge to distinguish unbiased information from information designed to push a product or service. There are organizations such as the Health on the Net Foundation and the E-Health Code of Ethics that have established clear quality and ethical criteria, but very few resources exist for these organizations to use in policing the sites that claim to adhere to their criteria. The National Institutes of Health recently started a consumer web site (www.medlineplus.gov) that takes web sites that adhere to their stringent criteria and places them on their web site, thus ensuring proper compliance. Patient education from sources other than face-to-face contact with a physician should be seen as an adjunct to the medical practice of physicians, and not as competition. Information is a form of therapy, and should lead to better referrals, more realistic outcome expectations, better treatment compliance, and better outcomes. As long as patients are referred to information that is unbiased, well-written, and not proprietary, their decision making should be enhanced, bringing them into the decision-making loop. This allows the patient to be much more involved with his or her care. As the medical profession changes from a "gatekeeper" model to a patient choice model, patient education will take on a much greater role.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11923675     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200204010-00019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  20 in total

1.  Does the quality, accuracy, and readability of information about lateral epicondylitis on the internet vary with the search term used?

Authors:  Christopher J Dy; Samuel A Taylor; Ronak M Patel; Moira M McCarthy; Timothy R Roberts; Aaron Daluiski
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2012-12

2.  Benefits of online health education: perception from consumers and health professionals.

Authors:  Khin Than Win; Naffisah Mohd Hassan; Andrew Bonney; Don Iverson
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 4.460

3.  Evaluation of the Quality, Accuracy, and Readability of Online Patient Resources for the Management of Articular Cartilage Defects.

Authors:  Dean Wang; Rohit G Jayakar; Natalie L Leong; Michael P Leathers; Riley J Williams; Kristofer J Jones
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  YouTube™ as a source of patient information for lumbar discectomy.

Authors:  F M Brooks; H Lawrence; A Jones; M J H McCarthy
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.891

5.  A survey of Internet utilization among patients with cancer.

Authors:  Kimra Castleton; Thomas Fong; Andrea Wang-Gillam; Muhammad A Waqar; Donna B Jeffe; Lisa Kehlenbrink; Feng Gao; Ramaswamy Govindan
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Web-based care management in patients with poorly controlled diabetes.

Authors:  Graham T McMahon; Helen E Gomes; Sara Hickson Hohne; Tang Ming-Jye Hu; Betty A Levine; Paul R Conlin
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 19.112

7.  Using information prescriptions to refer patients with metabolic conditions to the Genetics Home Reference website.

Authors:  Denise E Beaudoin; Nicola Longo; Robert A Logan; Jason P Jones; Joyce A Mitchell
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2011-01

Review 8.  Patient information and education with modern media: the Spine Society of Europe Patient Line.

Authors:  Ferran Pellisé; P Sell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Online Patient Education for Chronic Disease Management: Consumer Perspectives.

Authors:  Khin Than Win; Naffisah Mohd Hassan; Harri Oinas-Kukkonen; Yasmine Probst
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 4.460

10.  Study protocol of the YOU CALL--WE CALL TRIAL: impact of a multimodal support intervention after a "mild" stroke.

Authors:  Annie Rochette; Nicol Korner-Bitensky; Duane Bishop; Robert Teasell; Carole White; Gina Bravo; Robert Côté; Jean Lachaine; Teri Green; Louise-Hélène Lebrun; Sylvain Lanthier; Moira Kapral; Sharon Wood-Dauphinee
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 2.474

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.