BMJ 2002;324:555-556 ( 9 March )

Editorials

From patients to end users

Quality of online patient networks needs more attention than quality of online health information

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Some doctors still tremble in their boots when patients bring in printouts from the internet. If they refuse to read them, their patients may take offence. But if they attempt to review and discuss them, they may precipitate long, inconclusive discussions. And since many internet aware patients bring in information which their doctors know nothing about,¹ such discussions can sometimes be embarrassing. Consequently, some doctors have gone so far as to warn their patients, "Whatever you do, don't go on the internet."

Some studies seem to confirm the wisdom of such advice. A recent literature search turned up 100 studies that attempted to rate the accuracy and completeness of health information on the world wide web. Ratings ranged from about 15% to 85% (Eysenbach G. personal communication). Some doctors have understandably concluded that the healthcare information on the net is not to be trusted.

Our recent surveys at the Pew Internet and . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Braithwaite, J, Runciman, W B, Merry, A F (2009). Towards safer, better healthcare: harnessing the natural properties of complex sociotechnical systems. Qual Saf Health Care 18: 37-41 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Adams, S., Bal, R. (2009). Practicing Reliability: Reconstructing Traditional Boundaries in the Gray Areas of Health Information Review on the Web. Science Technology Human Values 34: 34-54 [Abstract]  
• Khechine, H., Pascot, D., Premont, P. (2008). Use of health-related information from the Internet by English-speaking patients. Health Informatics Journal 14: 17-28 [Abstract]  
• Kivits, J. (2006). Informed Patients and the Internet: A Mediated Context for Consultations with Health Professionals. J Health Psychol 11: 269-282 [Abstract]  
• Broom, A. (2005). Medical specialists' accounts of the impact of the Internet on the doctor/patient relationship. Health (London) 9: 319-338 [Abstract]  
• Leonard, H., Slack-Smith, L., Phillips, T., Richardson, S., D'Orsogna, L., Mulroy, S. (2004). How Can the Internet Help Parents of Children With Rare Neurologic Disorders?. J Child Neurol 19: 902-907 [Abstract]  
• Charnock, D., Shepperd, S. (2004). Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 19: 440-446 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Englesakis, M., Rizo, C., Stern, A. (2004). Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. BMJ 328: 1166- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Helft, P. R., Hlubocky, F., Daugherty, C. K. (2003). American Oncologists' Views of Internet Use by Cancer Patients: A Mail Survey of American Society of Clinical Oncology Members. JCO 21: 942-947 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Castiel, L D (2003). Self care and consumer health. Do we need a public health ethics?. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 57: 5-6 [Full text]  
• Purcell, G. P, Wilson, P., Delamothe, T. (2002). The quality of health information on the internet. BMJ 324: 557-558 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Simple Steps

Ned Hoke
bmj.com, 9 Mar 2002 [Full text]

'He is a truly great man, who does not cling to power.' (M Blennerhassett, 2002)

Mitzi AJ Blennerhassett
bmj.com, 9 Mar 2002 [Full text]

Internet Health Information : a London perspective

Trishan Panch
bmj.com, 25 Apr 2002 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>