Frustrated and confused: The American public rates its cancer-related information-seeking experiences

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 223-228

  Arora, Neeraj K ^a,e   Hesse, Bradford W ^a   Rimer, Barbara K ^b   Viswanath, K ^c   Clayman, Marla L ^d   Croyle, Robert T ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b IL   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e EPN 4005 ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Health information; Information needs; Information seeking; National survey

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER RELATED INFORMATION SEEKING EXPERIENCE; CONFUSION; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; FRUSTRATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CONFUSION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; FRUSTRATION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMATION SERVICES; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; ODDS RATIO; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 39149085676     PISSN: 08848734     EISSN: 15251497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-007-0406-y     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Institute of Medicine. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
2. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
3. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681-92.
4. Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R, et al. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:293-300.
5. Rimer BK, Briss PA, Zeller PK, Chan ECY, Woolf SH. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer. 2004;101(5 Suppl):1214-28.
6. Arora NK, McHorney CA. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Med Care. 2000;38:335-41.
7. Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. a national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:531-5.
8. Viswanath K. Science and society: the communications revolution and cancer control. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:828-35.
9. Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001;16:671-92.
10. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2618-24.
11. Rutten LJ, Arora NK, Bakos AD, Aziz N, Rowland J. Information needs and sources of information among cancer patients: a systematic review of research (1980-2003). Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57:250-61.
12. Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Guadagnoli E, et al. Patients' perceptions of quality of care for colorectal cancer by race, ethnicity, and language. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6576-86.
13. Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Hesse BW, et al. The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination. J Health Commun. 2004;9:443-60; discussion 81-4.
14. Arora NK, Johnson P, Gustafson DH, McTavish F, Hawkins RP, Pingree S. Barriers to information access, perceived health competence, and psychosocial health outcomes: test of a mediation model in a breast cancer sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;47:37-46.
15. Fox S. Health information online. Technical report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2005.
16. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions: how Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Technical report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2002.
17. Fox S, Fallows D. Internet health resources. Technical Report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2003.
18. Squiers L, Finney Rutten LJ, Treiman K, Bright MA, Hesse B. Cancer patients' information needs across the cancer care continuum: evidence from the Cancer Information Service. J Health Commun. 2005;10 (1 Suppl):15-34.
19. Tu HT, Hargraves JL. Seeking health care information: most consumers still on the sidelines. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2003;(61):1-4.
20. Jung HP, Baerveldt C, Olesen F, Grol R, Wensing M. Patient characteristics as predictors of primary health care preferences: a systematic literature analysis. Health Expect. 2003;6:160-81.
21. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285:2612-21.
22. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor-let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277:1244-5.
23. Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review. BMJ. 1999;318:647-9.
24. Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA. 1998;279:611-4.
25. Viswanath K, Breen N, Meissner H, et al. Cancer knowledge and disparities in the information age. J Health Commun. 2006;11(1 Suppl):1-17.
26. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2005;69:87-98.
27. Biener L, Garrett CA, Gilpin EA, et al. Consequences of declining survey response rates for smoking prevalence estimates. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27:254-7.