The potential influence of internet-based social networking on the conduct of clinical research studies

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 71-80

  Glickman, Seth W ^a   Galhenage, Sam ^b   McNair, Lindsay ^c   Barber, Zachry ^d   Patel, Keyur ^e   Schulman, Kevin A ^e   McHutchison, John G ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b FREMANTLE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c Equipoise Consulting LLC   (United States)

^d VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

^e DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f GILEAD SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Adverse events; Bias; Clinical trials; Internet; Online; Social media

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; RESEARCH SUBJECT; SOCIAL NETWORK;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMMUNICATION; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; HUMANS; INTERNET; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; SOCIAL NETWORKING;

EID: 84858054093     PISSN: 15562646     EISSN: 15562654     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.71     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Allison, M. (2009). Can Web 2.0 reboot clinical trials? Nature Biotechnology, 27(10), 895-902.
2. Baldwin, M., Spong, A., Doward, L., & Gnanasakthy, A. (2011). Patient-reported outcomes, patient-reported information: From randomized controlled trials to the social web and beyond. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 4(1), 11-17.
3. Bender, J. L., Jimenez-Marroquin, M.-C., & Jadad, A. R. (2011). Seeking support on Facebook: A content analysis of breast cancer groups. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1), e16.
4. Brownstein, C. A., Brownstein, J. S., Williams, D. S., III, Wicks, P., & Heywood, J. A. (2009). The power of social networking in medicine. Nature Biotechnology, 27(10), 888-890.
5. Culver, J. D., Gerr, F., & Frumkin, H. (1997). Medical information on the Internet: A study of an electronic bulletin board. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12(8), 466-470. (Pubitemid 27360653)
6. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E. R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(20), 2691-2700. (Pubitemid 34533548)
7. Getz, K., McDonald, D., & Heck, D. (2000). Finding subjects on the Internet. Applied Clinical Trials, 9, S8-S11.
8. Hesse, B. W., Nelson, D. E., Kreps, G. L., Croyle, R. T., Arora, N. K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2005). 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. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(22), 2618-2624. (Pubitemid 41785059)
9. Karp, S. & Monroe, A. F. (2002). Quality of healthcare information on the Internet: Caveat emptor still rules. Managed Care Quality, 10(2), 3-8.
10. Levine, C., Dubler, N. N., & Levine, R. J. (1991). Building a new consensus: Ethical principles and policies for clinical research on HIV/AIDS. IRB, 13(1&2), 1-17.
11. Muthukumarasamy, S., Osmani, Z., Sharpe, A., & England, R. J. (2011). Quality of information available on the World Wide Web for patients undergoing thyroidectomy: Review. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, August 26: 1-4. [FirstView article] Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/ displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8362232.
12. National Research Corporation. (2011). 1 in 5 Americans use social media for health care. Retrieved December 16, 2011 from http:// hcmg.nationalresearch. com/public/News.aspx?ID=9.
13. Nielson Company. (2011). Home internet access. Retrieved February 23, 2011 from http://www.marketingcharts.com/ interactive/home-internet-access-in- us-still-room-forgrowth- 8280/nielsen-internet-access-household-incomefebruary- 2009jpg/.
14. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2011a). Generations online in 2010. Retrieved March 19, 2011 from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/ Generations-2010/Overview.aspx.
15. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2011b). Peer-to-peer healthcare. Retrieved December 6, 2011 from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/ P2PHealthcareaspx.
16. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2011c). Trend data. Retrieved March 19, 2011 from http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Online- Activites-Total.aspx.
17. Schaffer, R., Henderson, G. E., Churchill, L. R., King, N. M., Rothschild, B. B., Lohser, S., & Davis, A. M. (2009). Parents' online portrayals of pediatric treatment and research options. Journal of Empirical Research in Human Research Ethics, 4(3), 73-87.
18. Soobrah, R. & Clark, S. (2011). Your patient information website: How good is it? Colorectal Diseases. August 29. [Accepted article] Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02792.x/pdf.
19. Steinbrook, R. (2006). Searching for the right search: Reaching the medical literature. New England Journal of Medicine, 354(1), 4-7. (Pubitemid 43048945)
20. Terlep, S. (2005). Web spreads the word on clinical trials: Federal money funds more research; Internet helps round up patients from across the country. The Detroit News, September 29, 01C.
21. Weitzman, E. R., Adida, B., Kelemen, S., & Mandl, K. D. (2011) Sharing data for public health research by members of an international online diabetes social network. PLoS One, 6(4), e19256.