Health information seeking, receipt, and use in diabetes self-management

Annals of Family Medicine

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 334-340

  Longo, Daniel R ^a   Schubert, Shari L ^b   Wright, Barbara A ^a,c   Lemaster, Joseph ^b   Williams, Casey D ^b   Clore, John N ^d  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Missouri   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Diabetes mellitus; Education; Patient; Self management

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION SEEKING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF CARE; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

AGED; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOR; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF CARE; UNITED STATES; VIRGINIA;

EID: 77955138412     PISSN: 15441709     EISSN: 15441717     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1370/afm.1115     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. United States Workplace Well-ness Alliance. Almanac of Chronic Disease, 2009 Edition: The Impact of Chronic Disease on U.S. Health and Prosperity: A Collection of Statistics and Commentary. Washington, DC: Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease: US Workplace Wellness Alliance; 2009.
2. Funnell MM, Brown TL, Childs BP, et al. National standards for diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(Suppl 1): S87-S94.
3. Giffn K. The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychol Bull. 1967;68(2):104-120.
4. Hovland CI, Weiss W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin Q. 1951;15:635-650.
5. Graham EE, Barbato CA, Perse EM. The interpersonal communication motives model. Commun Q. 1993;41(2):172-186.
6. Anderson CM, Martin MM. Communication motives of assertive and responsive communicators. Commun Res Rep. 1995;12:186 -191.
7. Renders CM, Valk GD, Griff n SJ, Wagner EH, Eijk Van JT, Assend-elft WJ. Interventions to improve the management of diabetes in primary care, outpatient, and community settings: a systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(10):1821-1833.
8. Chaiken S, Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66(3):460 - 473.
9. Wilson TD. Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective. Inf Process Manage. 1997;33(4):551-572.
10. Dutta-Bergman MJ. Primary sources of health information: comparisons in the domain of health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors. Health Commun. 2004;16(3):273-288.
11. Dutta-Bergman MJ. Media use theory and internet use for health care. In: Murero M Rice RE, eds. The Internet and Health Care: Theory, Research, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006:83-103.
12. Longo DR. Understanding health information, communication, and information seeking of patients and consumers: a comprehensive and integrated model. Health Expect. 2005;8(3):189-194.
13. Longo DR, Ge B, Greiner A, et al. Understanding breast-cancer patients' perceptions: Health information-seeking behaviour and passive information receipt. J Comm Healthcare. 2009;2(2):184-206.
14. Wright K. Social support within on on-line cancer community: An assessment of emotional support, perceptions of advantages and disadvantages, and motives for using the community from a communication perspective. J Appl Commun Res. 2002;30(3):195-209.
15. Lambert SD, Loiselle CG. Health information seeking behavior. Qual Health Res. 2007;17(8):1006-1019.
16. Dean AJ, Witham M, McGuire T. Predictors of safety-related enquiries about psychotropic medication in young people and families accessing a medicines information service. J Child Adolesc Psycho-pharmacol. 2009;19(2):179-185.
17. Edwards M, Davies M, Edwards A. What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: a meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75(1):37-52.
18. Ishikawa H, Yano E. Patient health literacy and participation in the health-care process. Health Expect. 2008;11(2):113-122.
19. O'Leary KA, Estabrooks CA, Olson K, Cumming C. Information acquisition for women facing surgical treatment for breast cancer: influencing factors and selected outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69(1-3):5-19.
20. Hu W, Grbich C, Kemp A. Parental food allergy information needs: a qualitative study. Arch Dis Child. 2007;92(9):771-775.
21. McNamara C. Basics of conducting focus groups. http://www.man-agementhelp.org/evaluatn/focusgrp.htm. Accessed Jun 16, 2009.
22. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.
23. Paulus T, Woodside M, Ziegler M. Extending the conversation: qualitative research as dialogic collaborative process. Qual Rep. 2008;13(2):226-243.
24. McNutt RA. Shared medical decision making: problems, process, progress. JAMA. 2004;292(20):2516-2518.