Literature DB >> 29202833

Correction to: Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review.

Silke Kuske1, Tim Schiereck2, Sandra Grobosch2, Andrea Paduch2, Sigrid Droste2, Sarah Halbach3, Andrea Icks2,4,5.   

Abstract

CORRECTION: During the production process for this article [1] some errors were introduced into Table 2. The correct version of Table 2 can be found below; the original article [1] has also been updated with the correct version of Table 2. BMC apologises to the authors and to readers for this error.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 29202833      PMCID: PMC5715615          DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0646-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Syst Rev        ISSN: 2046-4053


Correction

During the production process for this article [1] some errors were introduced into Table 2. The correct version of Table 2 can be found below; the original article [1] has also been updated with the correct version of Table 2. BMC apologises to the authors and to readers for this error.
Table 2

Overview of the identified studies

Author/YearDesign/ MethodRecruitmentsettingSample sizePopulationStudy focusFindingsCritical appraisalNumber of criteria*
AgeSexType of DM** (and duration)Region
Quantitative studies
Enwald et al. 2012 [22]Cross-sectional study (questionnaire within an experimental study)Register of the University of Oulu, medical records of health centres n=72Mainly >60f, mRisk of T2D (defined as pre-diabetes)FinlandRelation between physiological measurements (BMI, fitness level) and information needs and information behaviourBMI and fitness level of pre-diabetic patients are associated with information-seeking behaviour+2pp, 8p, 0m, 0NR, 9NA
Giménez-Pérez et al. 2015 [38]Cross-sectional study (questionnaire)Endocrinology unit of a university hospital n=289Average 43f, mT1D for at least 1 yearSpainHealth-related use of Internet technologiesUse of new Internet technologies among patients with T1D is low, e-mail preferred channel of communication with HCP+2pp, 8p, 0m, 0NR, 9NA
Hyman et al. 2012 [10]Cross-sectional study (questionnaire)Poster, community health centre, DM education centre, specialized clinic, Canadian Diabetes Association n=184Average: Immigrants 51,2, Cana-dian-born 52,3f, mSelf-reported T2DCanada (Toronto)Self-management, health service use and information-seeking behaviour of recent immigrants and Canadian-bornDifferences in performing self-management (regular blood glucose and foot checks) and perception of health service between immigrants and Canadian-born+3pp, 6p, 0m, 1NR, 9NA
Jamal et al. 2015 [36]Cross-sectional study (questionnaire)University Medical City (teaching hospitals) n=344Adults (>16 years old)f, mT2DSaudi Arabia (Riyadh)Online health information-seeking behaviour of people with T2DPhysicians and television preferred sources+3pp, 5p, 0m, 2NR, 9NA
Kalantzi et al. 2015 [5]Cross-sectional study (questionnaire)Outpatient clinic n=203Adults (>18 years old)f, mT1D, T2DGreece (Athens)Information-seeking behaviour of people with DM, information needs, Internet use, obstacles to information seekingDiet and complication are most important needs; the physician is a preferred source; Internet is not that important; most frequently barriers mentioned are costs and lack of time+2pp, 7p, 1m, 0NR 9NA,
Lui et al. 2014 [41]Baseline phase of a longitudinal study(questionnaire)Australian government initiative n=365256-70f, mT2DAustralia (Queensland)Correlation between health and social characteristics and Internet useInternet use associated with age, socioeconomic characteristics, duration, poor metabolic control and comorbidities+4pp, 6p, 0m, 0NR, 9NA
Nordfeldt et al. 2005 [23]Cross-sectional study (questionnaire)Paediatric clinics n=905-20f, mT1D for at least 1,5 yearsSwedenInternet health information seeking behaviour of children and adolescents with T1D, motivation, satisfactionMany use internet for health information seeking and share it with others. ‘Searchers’ with shorter duration. Need for more and better Internet information+4pp, 4p, 0m, 2NR, 9NA
Robertson et al. 2005 [24]Cross-sectional study (question-naire)Diabetes centres n=7016-79f, mT1D, T2DUnited Kingdom(Glasgow)Information source of people with DM, satisfactionVerbal information from healthcare professional is preferred, Internet use connected with age and educational level+/-0pp, 6p, 3m, 1NR, 9NA
Sayakhot and Carolan-Olah 2016 [42]Cross-sectional study (questionnaire)Diabetes clinic n=11618-43fGDMAustralia (Victoria)Information sources and satisfaction of women with GDMHCP, diabetes groups and Internet preferred sources; correlation between age and place of birth and Internet use; mostly satisfied with process of diagnosis+2pp, 8p, 0m, 0NR, 9NA
Shaw and Johnson 2011 [25]Cross-sectional study (questionnaire)Flyers in primary care clinics and libraries n=57Adults (>21 years)f, mT2DUSA (Sub-urban, rural south-eastern)Online health information seeking behaviour of people with DMMajority use Internet for health information seeking; many use social networks like Facebook or MySpace and discuss in chats-0pp, 6p, 4m, 0NR 9NA
Yamamoto et al. 2011 [26]Cross-sectional study (questionnaire)Diabetes clinics n=13720-75NRT1D for at least 6 monthsJapanInformation about islet transplantation in people with T1D, associated factors, sourcesMain sources are magazines and broadcast media; physicians are a preferred source of information, but mostly they do not have sufficient information about islet transplantation+4pp, 5p, 1m, 0NR, 9NA
Zare-Farashbandi et al 2016Cross-sectional study (questionnaire)Ten health centres under the super-vision of the Deputy of Health of Isfahan Province n= 36220-82f,mRisk of T2D (defined as pre-diabetes), GDM, T2DMIran (Isfahan)Effect of contextual factors on the health information–seeking behaviour of people with diabetesAn association between the time passed since diagnosis and information-seeking behaviour.+0pp, 8p, 0m, 2NR, 9NA
Qualitative studies
Connolly and Crosby 2014 [27]Focus groupQualified health centre n=25Average 54f, mNot definedHawaiiE-health literacy of individuals from a medically underserved area in HawaiiLow e-health literacy level, often access to Internet without use for health information seeking, often ability to handle when information missing+8/14
Fergie et al. 2015 [37]InterviewOnline, organizations for young adults, other participants n=20 T2DM n= 40 people with common mental health disorders18-30f, mNot definedUnited Kingdom(Glasgow)Online information seeking behaviour of young people with DM or common mental health disordersInternet preferred source of information for many participants; differences between professionally produced and social media sites+12/14
Kilgour et al. 2015 [39]InterviewTertiary referral hospital n=1329-41fGDMAustralia (Queensland)Postnatal follow-up and communication experiences of women with GDMNeed for accurate information and possibility to discuss information with HCP++13/14
Longo et al. 2010 [9]Focus group (5-8 parti-cipants each session)Clinic n=4648-77f, mT1D, T2DAmerican midwestern cityHealth information seeking and use, information source, active seeking and passive seekingPassive attainment of information is important; Internet for active seeking, relationships and healthcare professionals help to understand information+12/14
Low et al. 2016 [40]Interview, Focus groupPublic and private primary care clinics n=12 n=9 family member n=5 Health care professionals50-62f, mT2DMalaysiaInfluence of social networks on help-seeking behaviour of people with T2DImportant influences from family, friends, HCP++13/14
Meyfroidt et al. 2013 [29]Focus group (6 groups)Community health centre, solo and group practices n=2141-85f, mT2DBelgium (Brussels)Seeking and use of information sources of people with DM, active and passive seeking over timeGeneral practitioner is the most important source, healthcare professionals are most reliable++14/14
Milewski and Chen 2010 [30]InterviewOutpatient clinic, flyers n=19NRf, mT2DUSA (Southern California)Information seeking behaviour of people with DM, barriers of information use5 barriers identified: ‘Motivation fade over time’, ‘Passively Seeking Information’, ‘Inconsistency of Information’, ‘Generality of Information’, ‘Loss of Information’+11/14
Moonaghi et al. 2014 [28]InterviewNR n=15Average 51f, mT2D for at least a yearIran(Tabriz)Health information-seeking behaviour of Iranian DM patientsSocial context important for decision making and information seeking behaviour++13/14
Newton et al. 2012 [31]Interview (N=25),focus group (N=12),questionnaire (N=6)DM support group n=37Mainly >60f, mT2DEngland/UK (Inner London district)Information seeking and use of mainly older people with DM from a structurally lacking area, motivation, sourcesSeeking and use is influenced by social resources and context, which are important for effective and high quality care. Second most important factor is the duration of disease+9/14
Wilson 2013 [32]Survey (questionnaire)Email of insulin pump therapy group n=3022-64f,mT1D, T2DUnited Kingdom (Glasgow)Internet health information seeking of people with long-term DMInternet used for general questions, healthcare professionals for more specific needs-5/14
Mixed-methods studies
Morgan and Trauth 2013 [33]InterviewsDatabase of Pennsylvania State University Institute for Diabetes and Obesity, investigator contacts n=30Adults (>18 years)f, mT1D, T2D for at least a yearUSA (Central Pennsylvania and Southern Maryland)Online health information seeking and the demographic influence using a theoretical modelSeeking behaviour is influenced by different factors such as access to healthcare providers, seeking success or the social network+9/21 (8NA, 1NR)
Sparud-Lundin et al. 2011 [34]Survey (question-naire)Antenatal clinics n=10530-36fT1DSwedenOnline health information seeking behaviour, use and information needs of childbearing women, expectations for future online possibilitiesMany women with T1D seek health information online, particularly during pregnancy, precise expectations of web-based support+8/21 (8NA)
St Jean 2012 [12]Question-naire, interviews, card-sorting techniquesUniversity websites, flyers at clinics and support group meetings n=3432-81f, mT2DUSA, (Michigan)Information behaviour of people with DM, associated factors, that facilitate or hinder their diabetes-related information seeking and useParticipants often did not know their information needs until they found information about it. Some mentioned avoidance in the beginning. Different factors, time included, influencing information seeking behaviour++11/21 (8NA)
St Jean 2014 [13]Question-naire, interviews, card-sorting techniquesUniversity websites, flyers at clinics and support group meetings n=3432-81f, mT2DUSA, (Michigan)Information behaviour of people with DM, associated factors, that facilitate or hinder their diabetes-related information seeking and useThe new type of card-sorting technique was well accepted by the study participants; the combination of the card-sorting technique and think aloud protocol within this technique generated contextually rich data about people's diabetes course+7/21 (13NA)
St Jean 2016 [35]Question-naire, interviews, card-sorting techniquesUniversity websites, flyers at clinics and support group meetings n=3432-81f, mT2DUSA, (Michigan)Information behaviour of people with DM, associated factors, that facilitate or hinder their diabetes-related information seeking and useThis study showed several types of factors (physical, social, affective, and cognitive) that may facilitate, hinder, or impede the health-related information seeking+6/21 (12NA)
Weymann et al. 2016 [43]Semi-structured interviews, questionnaireUniversity Hospital, self-help groups, self-help associations n=10 (interviews) n=178 (questionnaire)36-86f, mT2DGermanyInternet use, knowledge and information and support needs of people with T2DMajority uses internet, no correlation between age and internet use, diabetes knowledge low, desire for shared decision-making+6/21 (8NA, 3NR)

Quality rating (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2012):

‘(++) — all or most of the checklist criteria have been fulfilled, where they have not been fulfilled the conclusions are very unlikely to alter; (+) — some of the checklist criteria have been fulfilled, where they have not been fulfilled, or not adequately described, the conclusions are unlikely to alter; (-) — few or no checklist criteria have been fulfilled and the conclusions are likely or very likely to alter.’

Key criteria (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2012):

pp: ‘Indicates that for that particular aspect of study design, the study has been designed or conducted in such a way as to minimise the risk of bias.’

p: ‘Indicates that either the answer to the checklist question is not clear from the way the study is reported, or that the study may not have addressed all potential sources of bias for that particular aspect of study design.’

m: ‘Should be reserved for those aspects of the study design in which significant sources of bias may persist.’

NR (not reported): ‘Should be reserved for those aspects in which the study under review fails to report how they have (or might have) been considered.’

NA (not applicable): ‘Should be reserved for those study design aspects that are not applicable given the study design under review (for example, allocation concealment would not be applicable for case–control studies).’

T1D: Type 1 diabetes; T2D: Type 2 diabetes; GDM: Gestational diabetes

Overview of the identified studies Quality rating (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2012): ‘(++) — all or most of the checklist criteria have been fulfilled, where they have not been fulfilled the conclusions are very unlikely to alter; (+) — some of the checklist criteria have been fulfilled, where they have not been fulfilled, or not adequately described, the conclusions are unlikely to alter; (-) — few or no checklist criteria have been fulfilled and the conclusions are likely or very likely to alter.’ Key criteria (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2012): pp: ‘Indicates that for that particular aspect of study design, the study has been designed or conducted in such a way as to minimise the risk of bias.’ p: ‘Indicates that either the answer to the checklist question is not clear from the way the study is reported, or that the study may not have addressed all potential sources of bias for that particular aspect of study design.’ m: ‘Should be reserved for those aspects of the study design in which significant sources of bias may persist.’ NR (not reported): ‘Should be reserved for those aspects in which the study under review fails to report how they have (or might have) been considered.’ NA (not applicable): ‘Should be reserved for those study design aspects that are not applicable given the study design under review (for example, allocation concealment would not be applicable for case–control studies).’ T1D: Type 1 diabetes; T2D: Type 2 diabetes; GDM: Gestational diabetes
  1 in total

Review 1.  Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review.

Authors:  Silke Kuske; Tim Schiereck; Sandra Grobosch; Andrea Paduch; Sigrid Droste; Sarah Halbach; Andrea Icks
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-10-24
  1 in total
  2 in total

1.  Determinants of healthful eating and physical activity among adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes in Qatar: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Hanan AlBurno; Liesbeth Mercken; Hein de Vries; Dabia Al Mohannadi; Francine Schneider
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Social Support and User Characteristics in Online Diabetes Communities: An In-Depth Survey of a Large-Scale Chinese Population.

Authors:  Dan Liang; Guanhua Fan
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.