Samuel G Smith1,2, Anjali Pandit1, Steven R Rush3, Michael S Wolf1, Carol Simon4. 1. Department of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 3. United Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Optum Labs, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are increasing opportunities for the public to access online health information, but attitudinal barriers to use are less well-known. Patient activation is associated with key health outcomes, but its relationship with using online health information is not known. OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between patient activation and the likelihood of accessing a range of different types of online health information in a nationally representative US sample. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationally representative survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were from an online (n = 2700) and random digit dial telephone survey (n = 700) of US adults (total n = 3400). MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Respondent characteristics and the Patient Activation Measure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported access of five types of online health information in the past 12 months (online medical records, cost estimation tools, quality comparison tools, health information about a specific condition, preventive health information). RESULTS: Approximately, one-fifth of the sample had accessed their medical record (21.6%), treatment cost estimation tools (17.3%) and hospital and physician quality comparison tools (21.8%). Nearly half of the sample had accessed information about medical conditions or treatments (48.3%) or preventive health and well-being (45.9%). In multivariable analyses adjusted for participant characteristics, respondents with greater patient activation were more likely to have accessed all types of health information other than cost estimation tools. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Activated people are more likely to make use of online heath information. Increasing patient activation could improve the public's ability to participate in health care and personal health self-management by encouraging health information seeking.
BACKGROUND: There are increasing opportunities for the public to access online health information, but attitudinal barriers to use are less well-known. Patient activation is associated with key health outcomes, but its relationship with using online health information is not known. OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between patient activation and the likelihood of accessing a range of different types of online health information in a nationally representative US sample. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationally representative survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were from an online (n = 2700) and random digit dial telephone survey (n = 700) of US adults (total n = 3400). MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Respondent characteristics and the Patient Activation Measure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported access of five types of online health information in the past 12 months (online medical records, cost estimation tools, quality comparison tools, health information about a specific condition, preventive health information). RESULTS: Approximately, one-fifth of the sample had accessed their medical record (21.6%), treatment cost estimation tools (17.3%) and hospital and physician quality comparison tools (21.8%). Nearly half of the sample had accessed information about medical conditions or treatments (48.3%) or preventive health and well-being (45.9%). In multivariable analyses adjusted for participant characteristics, respondents with greater patient activation were more likely to have accessed all types of health information other than cost estimation tools. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Activated people are more likely to make use of online heath information. Increasing patient activation could improve the public's ability to participate in health care and personal health self-management by encouraging health information seeking.
Authors: Bradford W Hesse; David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Robert T Croyle; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; Kasisomayajula Viswanath Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005 Dec 12-26
Authors: Benjamin G Druss; Liping Zhao; Silke A von Esenwein; Joseph R Bona; Larry Fricks; Sherry Jenkins-Tucker; Evelina Sterling; Ralph Diclemente; Kate Lorig Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2010-02-25 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Suzanne E Mitchell; Paula M Gardiner; Ekaterina Sadikova; Jessica M Martin; Brian W Jack; Judith H Hibbard; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mehret S Birru; Valerie M Monaco; Lonelyss Charles; Hadiya Drew; Valerie Njie; Timothy Bierria; Ellen Detlefsen; Richard A Steinman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2004-09-03 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sarah L Goff; Kathleen M Mazor; Penelope S Pekow; Katharine O White; Aruna Priya; Tara Lagu; Haley Guhn-Knight; Lorna Murphy; Yara Youssef Budway; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Maan Isabella Cajita; Marci Lee Nilsen; Taya Irizarry; Judith A Callan; Scott R Beach; Ellen Swartwout; Laurel Person Mecca; Richard Schulz; Annette DeVito Dabbs Journal: Res Gerontol Nurs Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 1.643
Authors: Samuel G Smith; Rachel O'Conor; William Aitken; Laura M Curtis; Michael S Wolf; Mita Sanghavi Goel Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Alexandra J Greenberg; Angela L Falisi; Lila J Finney Rutten; Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou; Vaishali Patel; Richard P Moser; Bradford W Hesse Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 7.076