The Impact of Health Information on the Internet on Health Care and the Physician-Patient Relationship: National U.S. Survey among 1.050 U.S. Physicians

dc.contributor.authorMurray, Elizabeth en_US
dc.contributor.authorLo, Bernard en_US
dc.contributor.authorPollack, Lance en_US
dc.contributor.authorDonelan, Karen en_US
dc.contributor.authorCatania, Joe en_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, Ken en_US
dc.contributor.authorZapert, Kinga en_US
dc.contributor.authorTurner, Rachel en_US
dc.date.accessioned2005-12-22T18:55:13Z
dc.date.available2005-12-22T18:55:13Z
dc.date.copyright2003en_US
dc.date.issued2003-08-29en_US
dc.descriptionReviewer: Clarke, Aen_US
dc.description.abstract[This item is a preserved copy and is not necessarily the most recent version. To view the current item, visit http://www.jmir.org/2003/3/e17/ ] Background: Public use of the Internet for health information is increasing but its effect on health care is unclear. We studied physicians' experience of patients looking for health information on the Internet and their perceptions of the impact of this information on the physician-patient relationship, health care, and workload. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of a nationally-representative sample of United States physicians (1050 respondents; response rate 53%). Results: Eighty-five percent of respondents had experienced a patient bringing Internet information to a visit. The quality of information was important: accurate, relevant information benefited, while inaccurate or irrelevant information harmed health care, health outcomes, and the physician-patient relationship. However, the physician's feeling that the patient was challenging his or her authority was the most consistent predictor of a perceived deterioration in the physician-patient relationship (OR = 14.9; 95% CI, 5.5-40.5), in the quality of health care (OR = 3.4; 95% CI, 1.1-10.9), or health outcomes (OR = 5.6; 95% CI, 1.7-18.7). Thirty-eight percent of physicians believed that the patient bringing in information made the visit less time efficient, particularly if the patient wanted something inappropriate (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.4), or the physician felt challenged (OR = 3.6; 95% CI, 1.8-7.2). Conclusions: The quality of information on the Internet is paramount: accurate relevant information is beneficial, while inaccurate information is harmful. Physicians appear to acquiesce to clinically-inappropriate requests generated by information from the Internet, either for fear of damaging the physician-patient relationship or because of the negative effect on time efficiency of not doing so. A minority of physicians feels challenged by patients bringing health information to the visit; reasons for this require further research.en_US
dc.format.extent85494 bytes
dc.format.extent183659 bytes
dc.format.extent125 bytes
dc.format.extent6817 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/html
dc.format.mimetypetext/xml
dc.format.mimetypeimage/gif
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/octet-stream
dc.identifierdoi:10.2196/jmir.5.3.e17en_US
dc.identifier.citationElizabeth Murray, Bernard Lo, Lance Pollack, Karen Donelan, Joe Catania, Ken Lee, Kinga Zapert, Rachel Turner. The Impact of Health Information on the Internet on Health Care and the Physician-Patient Relationship: National U.S. Survey among 1.050 U.S. Physicians. J Med Internet Res 2003;5(3):e17 <URL: http://www.jmir.org/2003/3/e17/>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1438-8871en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1807/4667
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherGunther Eysenbach; Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, Toronto, Canadaen_US
dc.relation.referencescitedLenhart A, Horrigan J, Rainie L, Allen K, Boyce A, Madden M. The ever-shifting Internet population. a new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Apr 16, 2003. URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Shifting_Net_Pop_Report.pdfen_US
dc.relation.referencescitedKassirer J P. Patients, physicians, and the Internet. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000. Vol. 19(6) p. 115-23. URL: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=reprint&pmid=11192394en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedEysenbach Gunther, Köhler Christian. Does the internet harm health? Database of adverse events related to the internet has been set up. BMJ Jan 26, 2002. Vol. 324(7331) p. 239.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedGallagher T H, Lo B, Chesney M, Christensen K. How do physicians respond to patient's requests for costly, unindicated services?. J Gen Intern Med Nov 1997. Vol. 12(11) p. 663-8.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedBell R A, Wilkes M S, Kravitz R L. Advertisement-induced prescription drug requests: patients' anticipated reactions to a physician who refuses. J Fam Pract Jun 1999. Vol. 48(6) p. 446-52.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedGallagher T H, St Peter R F, Chesney M, Lo B. Patients' attitudes toward cost control bonuses for managed care physicians. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001. Vol. 20(2) p. 186-92. URL: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=reprint&pmid=11260942en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedHardey M. Doctor in the house: the Internet as a source of lay health knowledge and the challenge to expertise. Sociology of Health and Illness 1999. Vol. 21(6) p. 820-835.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedAnderson J. How the Internet is transforming the physician-patient relationship. Medscape Tech Med 2001. Vol. 1 p. 1-2.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedMurray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Lee K. Direct to consume advertising: physicians views of its effects on quality of care and the doctor-patient relationship. J Am Board Fam Practen_US
dc.relation.referencescitedStata Corporaton. Stata Reference Manual Release 7 Stata Press; College Station, Texas. 2001.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedWilson Petra. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet. BMJ Mar 9, 2002. Vol. 324(7337) p. 598-602. URL: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7337/598en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedEysenbach G. Consumer health informatics. BMJ Jun 24, 2000. Vol. 320(7251) p. 1713-6. URL: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7251/1713en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedEysenbach G, Diepgen T L. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. BMJ Nov 28, 1998. Vol. 317(7171) p. 1496-500. URL: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7171/1496en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedPurcell Gretchen P, Wilson Petra, Delamothe Tony. The quality of health information on the internet. BMJ Mar 9, 2002. Vol. 324(7337) p. 557-8. URL: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7337/557en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedDelamothe T. Quality of websites: kitemarking the west wind. BMJ Oct 7, 2000. Vol. 321(7265) p. 843-4. URL: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/843en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedGagliardi Anna, Jadad Alejandro R. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ Mar 9, 2002. Vol. 324(7337) p. 569-73. URL: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7337/569en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedEysenbach Gunther, Köhler Christian. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ Mar 9, 2002. Vol. 324(7337) p. 573-7. URL: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7337/573en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedKunst Heinke, Groot Diederik, Latthe Pallavi M, Latthe Manish, Khan Khalid S. Accuracy of information on apparently credible websites: survey of five common health topics. BMJ Mar 9, 2002. Vol. 324(7337) p. 581-2. URL: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7337/581en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedGallagher T H, Lo B, Chesney M, Christensen K. How do physicians respond to patient's requests for costly, unindicated services?. J Gen Intern Med Nov 1997. Vol. 12(11) p. 663-8.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedLevinson W, Gorawara-bhat R, Dueck R, Egener B, Kao A, Kerr C, Lo B, Perry D, Pollitz K, Reifsteck S, Stein T, Santa J, Kemp-white M. Resolving disagreements in the patient-physician relationship: tools for improving communication in managed care. JAMA Oct 20, 1999. Vol. 282(15) p. 1477-83.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedYoung J M, Ward J E. General practitioners' use of evidence databases. Med J Aust Jan 18, 1999. Vol. 170(2) p. 56-8. URL: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan18/young/young.htmlen_US
dc.relation.referencescitedPereira J, Bruera E, Quan H. Palliative care on the net: an online survey of health care professionals. J Palliat Care 2001. Vol. 17(1) p. 41-5.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedPotts Henry W W, Wyatt Jeremy C. Survey of doctors' experience of patients using the Internet. J Med Internet Res Mar 31, 2002. Vol. 4(1) p. e5. URL: http://www.jmir.org/2002/1/e5/en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedLacher D, Nelson E, Bylsma W, Spena R. Computer use and needs of internists: a survey of members of the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. Proc AMIA Symp 2000. p. 453-6. URL: http://www.amia.org/pubs/symposia/D200043.PDFen_US
dc.relation.referencescitedJadad A R, Sigouin C, Cocking L, Booker L, Whelan T, Browman G. Internet use among physicians, nurses, and their patients. JAMA Sep 26, 2001. Vol. 286(12) p. 1451-2.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedGrzybicki Dana Marie, Vrbin Colleen M. Pathology resident attitudes and opinions about pathologists' assistants. Arch Pathol Lab Med Jun 2003. Vol. 127(6) p. 666-72.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedDaneshgari Firouz, Sorensen Carsten. Practice pattern of urologists in the Rocky Mountains region with regard to use of urodynamic studies. Urology May 2003. Vol. 61(5) p. 942-5.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedDuggan Joan, Khuder Sadik, Sinha Neil, Chakraborty Joana. Survey of physician attitudes toward HIV testing in pregnant women in Ohio. AIDS Patient Care STDS Mar 2003. Vol. 17(3) p. 121-7.en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedMihalynuk Tanis V, Scott Craig S, Coombs John B. Self-reported nutrition proficiency is positively correlated with the perceived quality of nutrition training of family physicians in Washington State. Am J Clin Nutr May 2003. Vol. 77(5) p. 1330-6. URL: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12716690en_US
dc.relation.referencescitedMurray Elizabeth, Lo Bernard, Pollack Lance, Donelan Karen, Catania Joe, White Martha, Zapert Kinga, Turner Rachel. The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: patient perceptions. Arch Intern Med Jul 28, 2003. Vol. 163(14) p. 1727-34.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright (cc) Retained by author(s) under a Creative Commons License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/en_US
dc.subjectOriginal Paperen_US
dc.subjectPhysiciansen_US
dc.subjectInterneten_US
dc.subjectphysician-patient relationsen_US
dc.titleThe Impact of Health Information on the Internet on Health Care and the Physician-Patient Relationship: National U.S. Survey among 1.050 U.S. Physiciansen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
jmir.html
Size:
83.49 KB
Format:
Hypertext Markup Language
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
jmir_v5i3e17.xml
Size:
179.35 KB
Format:
Extensible Markup Language
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
linkout.gif
Size:
125 B
Format:
Graphics Interchange Format
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
stylesheet.css
Size:
6.66 KB
Format:
Unknown data format

Collections