Elizabeth Sillence1, Phoenix K H Mo. 1. Lecturer, PaCT Lab, School of Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKResearch Assistant Professor, Centre for Health Behaviours Research, School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experiential websites such as message forums and blogs allow Prostate Cancer (PCa) patients to communicate their health decisions to peers. The issues surrounding this form of indirect involvement in public health are little understood. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the types of decision-making processes that people are exposed to on PCa online message boards. The kinds of treatment choices patients are making and the reports of their decision-making processes to peers through an online environment are examined in the context of the Heuristic Systematic Model. METHOD: Messages about treatment decision making were collected from four PCa websites. In total, 137 messages were selected from blogs and online forums and their decision-making processes coded. RESULTS: Men looking online for information about treatment options for PCa are exposed to a range of decision-making processes. Just under half (49.6%) of the messages reported non-systematic decision processes, with deferral to the doctor and proof of cancer removal being the most common. For systematic processing (36.5%), messages most commonly considered treatment outcomes and side-effects. Processes did not vary between the blogs and online forums. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to previous studies far fewer messages reported non-systematic decision processes and only a small number of messages reflected lay beliefs or misbeliefs about PCa treatment. Implications for men and their clinicians of seeking health information online are discussed.
BACKGROUND: Experiential websites such as message forums and blogs allow Prostate Cancer (PCa) patients to communicate their health decisions to peers. The issues surrounding this form of indirect involvement in public health are little understood. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the types of decision-making processes that people are exposed to on PCa online message boards. The kinds of treatment choices patients are making and the reports of their decision-making processes to peers through an online environment are examined in the context of the Heuristic Systematic Model. METHOD: Messages about treatment decision making were collected from four PCa websites. In total, 137 messages were selected from blogs and online forums and their decision-making processes coded. RESULTS:Men looking online for information about treatment options for PCa are exposed to a range of decision-making processes. Just under half (49.6%) of the messages reported non-systematic decision processes, with deferral to the doctor and proof of cancer removal being the most common. For systematic processing (36.5%), messages most commonly considered treatment outcomes and side-effects. Processes did not vary between the blogs and online forums. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to previous studies far fewer messages reported non-systematic decision processes and only a small number of messages reflected lay beliefs or misbeliefs about PCa treatment. Implications for men and their clinicians of seeking health information online are discussed.
Authors: Clement K Gwede; Julio Pow-Sang; John Seigne; Randy Heysek; Mohamed Helal; Kristin Shade; Alan Cantor; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Suzanne K Steginga; David P Smith; Carole Pinnock; Robyn Metcalfe; Robert A Gardiner; Jeff Dunn Journal: BJU Int Date: 2006-10-09 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Alexis Koskan; Lynne Klasko; Stacy N Davis; Clement K Gwede; Kristen J Wells; Ambuj Kumar; Natalia Lopez; Cathy D Meade Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Margareth Santos Zanchetta; Marguerite Cognet; Mary Rachel Lam-Kin-Teng; Marie Elisabeth Dumitriu; Lise Renaud; Jacques Rhéaume Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Amanda L Graham; Kang Zhao; George D Papandonatos; Bahar Erar; Xi Wang; Michael S Amato; Sarah Cha; Amy M Cohn; Jennifer L Pearson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 3.240