Developing a web site in primary care

Family Medicine

Volumn 36, Issue 9, 2004, Pages 651-659

  Fetters, Michael D ^a   Ivankova, Nataliya V ^b   Ruffin IV, Mack T ^a   Creswell, John W ^c   Power, Debra ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Off Qualitative Mixed Methods Res   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^d Moore Power Marketing   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLORECTAL CANCER; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERVIEW; MALE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; UNITED STATES;

AGED; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE;

EID: 5044227295     PISSN: 07423225     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bonakdar RA. Herbal cancer cures on the Web: noncompliance with The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Fam Med 2002;34(7):522-7.
2. Cumbo A, Agre P, Dougherty J, et al. On-line cancer patient education: evaluating usability and content. Cancer Pract 2002;10(3):155-61.
3. Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW. Patients' use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17(3):180-5.
4. www.pewinternet.org. Accessed January 17, 2001.
5. http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,1323, 5971_379231,00.html. Accessed June 18, 2000.
6. Grover F Jr, Wu HD, Blanford C, Holcolb S, Tidler D. Computer-using patients want Internet services from family physicians. J Fam Pract 2002;51(6):570-2.
7. Chelf JH, Agre P, Axelrod A, et al. Cancer-related patient education: an overview of the last decade of evaluation and research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2001;28(7):1139-47.
8. Quintana Y, Feightner JW, Wathen CN, Sangster LM, Marshall JN. Preventive health information on the Internet: qualitative study of consumers' perspectives. Can Fam Physician 2001;47:1759-65.
9. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin 2000;50(1):7-33.
10. Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(2):132-41.
11. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al. Colorectal screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997;112(2):594-642.
12. Beeker C, Kraft JM, Southwell BG, Jorgensen CM. Colorectal cancer screening in older men and women: qualitative research findings and implications for intervention. J Community Health 2000;25(3):263-78.
13. Wood MC, Ryan CT. Resources on colorectal cancer for patients. Cancer Pract 2000;8(6):308-10.
14. Power D. Rewriting the rules: recruiting for focus groups on colorectal cancer required a creative approach. Quirk's Marketing Research Review 2001;Dec:24-9.
15. Coulter A. Evidence-based patient information is important, so there needs to be a national strategy to ensure it. BMJ 1998;317(7153): 225-6.
16. Kinzie MB, Cohn WF, Julian MF, Knaus WA. A user-centered model for Web site design: needs assessment, user interface design, and rapid prototyping. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002;9(4):320-30.
17. Power D. University of Michigan medical turns to usability testing to fine tune an informational Web site on colorectal cancer. Quirk's Marketing Research Review 2002;June:78-81.
18. Seidler-Patterson K, Patterson MJ. Tapping into the usability dimension: test your product before it goes on-line. Quirk's Marketing Research Review 2001;July-Aug:64-8.
19. McCray AT, Dorfman E, Ripple A, et al. Usability issues in developing a Web-based consumer health site. Proc AMIA Symp 2000:556-6016.
20. Elkin PL, Sorensen B, De Palo D, et al. Optimization of a research Web environment for academic internal medicine faculty. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002;9(5):472-8.
21. Fuller DM, Hinegardner PG. Ensuring quality Web site redesign: the University of Maryland's experience. Bull Med Libr Assoc 2001;89(4):339-45.
22. Croft DR, Peterson MW. An evaluation of the quality and contents of asthma education on the World Wide Web. Chest 2002;121(4):1301-7.
23. Eysenbach G, Köhler C. 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 2002;324(7337):573-7.
24. Patton MQ. Designing qualitative studies. In: Patton MQ, ed. Qualitatitive evaluation and research methods, third edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2002:145-98.
25. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, Calif. Sage Publications, 1998.
26. Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research, second edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1997.
27. Krueger RA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Thou-sand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1994.
28. Edwards JA, Lampert MD, eds. Talking data: transcription and coding in discourse research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.
29. Creswell JW. Educational research - planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2002.
30. Corbin JM, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, second edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1998.
31. Corbin JM, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1990.
32. Gregg J, Curry RH. Explanatory models for cancer among African American women at two Atlanta neighborhood health centers: the implications for a cancer screening program. Soc Sci Med 1994;39(4):519-26.
33. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of qualitative research, second edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2000:163-88.
34. Inui TS, Frankel RM. Evaluating the quality of qualitative research: a proposal pro tem. J Gen Intern Med 1991;6:485-6.
35. Ward MM. Study design in qualitative research. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:107-9.
36. Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches, third edition. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.