Reasons for consulting a doctor on the internet: Web survey of users of anAsk the Doctor service

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 23-31

  Umefjord, Göran ^a   Petersson, Göran ^b,c   Hamberg, Katarina ^d  

^a Nyland Health Center   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c Swedish Net University Agency   (Sweden)

^d UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Access to information; Anonyms and pseudonyms; Information services; Internet; Physician patient relations; Remote consultation

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL SERVICE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SCHOOL CHILD; TIME; WRITING;

EID: 3142579263     PISSN: 14388871     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Eysenbach G, Diegpen TL. Patients looking for information on the Internet and seeking teleadvice: motivation, expectations, and misconceptions as expressed in e-mails sent to physicians. Arch Dermatol 1999 Feb;135(2):151-156. [Medline]
2. Borowitz SM, Wyatt JC. The origin, content, and workload of e-mail consultations. JAMA 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1321-1324. [Medline]
3. Spielberg AR. On call and online: sociohistorical, legal, and ethical implications of e-mail for the patient-physician relationship. JAMA 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1353-1359. [Medline]
4. Ferguson T. Digital doctoring - opportunities and challenges in electronic patient-physician communication. JAMA 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1361-1362. [Medline]
5. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Responses to unsolicited patient e-mail requests for medical advice on the World Wide Web. JAMA 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1333-1335. [Medline]
6. Kane B, Sands DZ. Guidelines for the clinical use of electronic mail with patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998 Jan-Feb;5(1):104-111. [Full text] [Medline]
7. Huntley AC. The need to know: patients, e-mail, and the Internet. Arch Dermatol 1999 Feb;135(2):198-199. [Medline]
8. Lewis AD, Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Patients, physicians, and e-mail. Arch Dermatol 2000;136(1):121-122.
9. Eysenbach G. Towards ethical guidelines for dealing with unsolicited patient emails and giving teleadvice in the absence of a pre-existing patient-physician relationship - systematic review and expert survey. J Med Internet Res 2000 Jan-Mar;2(1):e1. [Full text] [Medline]
10. DeVille K, Fitzpatrick J. Ready or not, here it comes: the legal, ethical, and clinical implications of e-mail communications. Semin Pediatr Surg 2000 Feb;9(1):24. [Medline]
11. Kuszler PC. A question of duty: common law legal issues resulting from physician response to unsolicited patient email inquiries [editorial]. J Med Internet Res 2000 Jul-Sep;2(3):e17. [Full text] [Medline]
12. Sittig DF, King S, Hazlehurst BL. A survey of patient-provider e-mail communication: what do patients think? Int J Med Inf 2001 Apr;61(1):71-80. [Medline]
13. Labiris G, Coertzen I, Katsikas A, Petounis A. An eight-year study of Internet-based remote medical counselling. J Telemed Telecare 2002;8(4):222-225. [Medline]
14. Infomedica. Home page. URL: http://www.infomedica.se/ [accessed 2003 Sep 19]
15. Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1990.
16. US Department of Commerce. A nation online: how Americans are expanding their use of the Internet: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Feb; 2002. URL: http://www.esa.doc.gov/nationonline.cfm [accessed 2003 Sep 19]
17. Coleman N, Jeawody F, Wapshot J. Electronic government at Department for Work and Pensions: attitudes to electronic methods of conducting benefit. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 176. URL: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/176summ.pdf [accessed 2003 Sep 19]
18. Fox S, Fallows D. Internet health resources: health searches and email have become more commonplace, but there is room for improvement in searches and overall Internet access. Washington, DC: The Pew Internet & American Life Project. Jul 16; 2003. [Full text]
19. Vehovar V, Lozar K, Batagelj Z, Zaletel M. Nonresponse in Web surveys. In: Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little, RJA, eds. Survey nonresponse. Chichester NY: John Wiley & Sons:229-242; 2001.
20. Pettit FA. A comparison of World-Wide Web and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2002 Feb;34(1):50-54. [Medline]
21. Taylor H. Does Internet research work? International journal of market research 2000;42(1):51-63.
22. Fox S, Rainie L. The online health care revolution: how the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington, DC: The Pew Internet & American Life Project. Nov 26; 2000. [Full text]
23. Rideout V. Generation Rx.com: how young people use the Internet for health information. 2001 Dec. URL: http://www.kff.org/content/2001/20011211a/ GenerationRx.pdf [accessed 2003 Sep 19]
24. Smith R. Almost no evidence exists that the Internet harms health [news]. BMJ 2001 Sep 22;323(7314):651. [Full text]
25. Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the Internet. JAMA 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2869-2871. [Medline]
26. Eysenbach G, K̈hler C. Database of adverse events related to the internet has been set up [letter]. BMJ 2002 Jan 26;324(7331):239. [Full text] [Medline]
27. Research Unit for Cybermedicine & E-health. Database of Adverse Events Related to the Internet (DAERI). URL: http://www.medcertain.org/daeri/ [accessed 2003 Sep 19]
28. Potts HWW, Wyatt JC. Survey of doctors' experience of patients using the Internet. J Med Internet Res 2002 Jan-Mar;4(1):e5. [Full text]
29. Standing Committee of European Doctors (CP). Ethical guidelines in telemedicine. 1997 Apr 12. URL: http://www.utu.fi/research/mircit/ethics.html [accessed 2003 Sep 19]
30. Couchman GR, Forjuoh SN, Rascoe TG. E-mail communications in family practice: what do patients expect? J Fam Pract 2001 May;50(5):414-418. [Medline]
31. Harris Interactive. Patient/physician online communication: many patients want it, would pay for it, and it would influence their choice of doctors and health plans. Harris Interactive Health Care News 2002 Apr 10;2(8):1-3. [Full text]
32. Andreassen H, Sandaune AG, Gammon D, Hjortdahl P. Norwegian use of Internet health services [in Norwegian]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2002 Jun 30;122(17):1640-1644. [Medline]
33. Poensgen A, Larsson S. Patients, physicians, and the Internet: myth, reality, and implications. 2001 Jan. URL: http://www.bcg.com/publications/files/ Patients_Physicians_and_the_Internet_Jan_01_summary.pdf [accessed 2003 Sep 19]