OBJECTIVES: Most research examining the impact of patients seeking online health information treats internet information homogenously, rather than recognizing that there are multiple types and sources of available information. The present research was conducted to differentiate among sources and types of internet information that patients search for, intend to discuss with their doctors, and recall discussing with their doctors, and to determine how accurate and hopeful patients rate this information. METHODS: We surveyed 70 breast cancer patients recruited from the waiting rooms of breast medical oncology and surgery clinics. The main variables in the study were as follows: (1) the sources and types of online information patients have read, intended to discuss, and actually discussed with their doctors, and (2) how accurately and hopefully they rated this information to be. RESULTS: Patients read information most frequently from the websites of cancer organizations, and most often about side effects. Patients planned to discuss fewer types of information with their doctors than they had read about. They most often intended to discuss information from cancer organization websites or WebMD, and the material was most often about alternative therapies, side effects, and proven or traditional treatments. Some 76.8% of total participants rated the information they had read as very or somewhat accurate, and 61% rated the information they had read as very or somewhat hopeful. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Internet information varies widely by source and type. Differentiating among sources and types of information is essential to explore the ways in which online health information impacts patients' experiences.
OBJECTIVES: Most research examining the impact of patients seeking online health information treats internet information homogenously, rather than recognizing that there are multiple types and sources of available information. The present research was conducted to differentiate among sources and types of internet information that patients search for, intend to discuss with their doctors, and recall discussing with their doctors, and to determine how accurate and hopeful patients rate this information. METHODS: We surveyed 70 breast cancerpatients recruited from the waiting rooms of breast medical oncology and surgery clinics. The main variables in the study were as follows: (1) the sources and types of online information patients have read, intended to discuss, and actually discussed with their doctors, and (2) how accurately and hopefully they rated this information to be. RESULTS:Patients read information most frequently from the websites of cancer organizations, and most often about side effects. Patients planned to discuss fewer types of information with their doctors than they had read about. They most often intended to discuss information from cancer organization websites or WebMD, and the material was most often about alternative therapies, side effects, and proven or traditional treatments. Some 76.8% of total participants rated the information they had read as very or somewhat accurate, and 61% rated the information they had read as very or somewhat hopeful. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Internet information varies widely by source and type. Differentiating among sources and types of information is essential to explore the ways in which online health information impacts patients' experiences.
Authors: Joseph A Diaz; Rebecca A Griffith; James J Ng; Steven E Reinert; Peter D Friedmann; Anne W Moulton Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Megan Johnson Shen; Robert C Dyson; Thomas A D'Agostino; Jamie S Ostroff; Maura N Dickler; Alexandra S Heerdt; Carma L Bylund Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Shaylyn S Stark; Loki Natarajan; Diana Chingos; Jennifer Ehren; Jessica R Gorman; Michael Krychman; Brian Kwan; Jun J Mao; Emily Myers; Tom Walpole; John P Pierce; H Irene Su Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Lori Ann Post; Federico E Vaca; Brian J Biroscak; James Dziura; Cynthia Brandt; Steven L Bernstein; Richard Taylor; Liudvikas Jagminas; Gail D'Onofrio Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 4.773