Social media use by patients with glaucoma: What can we learn?

Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 46-52

  Mcgregor, Freia ^a   Somner, John E A ^b   Bourne, Rupert R ^b   Munn Giddings, Carol ^c   Shah, Peter ^d,e   Cross, Vinette ^e  

^a WEST SUFFOLK HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Glaucoma; Media; Social; Support group; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GLAUCOMA; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; MEDIA; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; METHODOLOGY; SOCIAL; SOCIAL MEDIA; STANDARD; SUPPORT GROUP; UTILIZATION REVIEW; WEB 2.0;

GLAUCOMA; MEDIA; SOCIAL; SUPPORT GROUP; WEB 2.0;

GLAUCOMA; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEMS; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 84890185951     PISSN: 02755408     EISSN: 14751313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12093     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 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: 1244-1245.
2. Andreassen HK, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Chronaki CE et al. European citizens' use of E-health services: a study of seven countries. BMC Public Health 2007; 7: 53.
3. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O & Sa E-R. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287: 2691-2700.
4. Pulman A & Taylor J. Munchausen by internet: current research and future directions. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14: e115.
5. Mills T, Law SK, Walt J, Buchholz P & Hansen J. Quality of life in glaucoma and three other chronic diseases: a systematic literature review. Drugs Aging 2009; 26: 933-950.
6. Hoevenaars JGMM, Schouten JSAG, Van den Borne B, Beckers HJM & Webers CAB. Knowledge base and preferred methods of obtaining knowledge of glaucoma patients. Eur J Ophthalmol 2005; 15: 32-40.
7. Narendran N, Amissah-Arthur K, Groppe M & Scotcher S. Internet use by ophthalmology patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94: 378.
8. Pfeil U & Zaphiris P. Applying qualitative content analysis to study online support communities. Univ Access Inform Soc 2009; 9: 1-16.
9. Braun V & Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77-101.
10. Eysenbach G & Till JE. Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ 2001; 323: 1103-1105.
11. Sizmur S & Redding D. Core Domains for Measuring Inpatients' Experience of Care. Picker Institute: Europe, 2009.
12. Hawker MD. Social networking in the National Health Service in England: a quantitative analysis of the online identities of 152 primary care trusts. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 160 (Pt 1): 356-360.
13. Munn-Giddings C & McVicar A. Self-help groups as mutual support: what do carers value? Health Soc Care Community 2007; 15: 26-34.
14. Floridi L. Brave.Net.World: the Internet as a disinformation superhighway? Electronic Library. MCB UP Ltd; 1996; 14: 509-514.
15. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G & Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53: 105-111.
16. Gunasekera V, Ernst E & Ezra DG. Systematic internet-based review of complementary and alternative medicine for glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 435-439.e2.
17. Leffler CT, Davenport B & Chan D. Frequency and seasonal variation of ophthalmology-related internet searches. Can J Ophthalmol 2010; 45: 274-279.
18. Stone TW & Jumper JM. Information about age-related macular degeneration on the Internet. South Med J 2001; 94: 22-25.
19. Rennie CA, Hannan S, Maycock N & Kang C. Age-related macular degeneration: what do patients find on the internet? J R Soc Med 2007; 100: 473-477.
20. Schalnus R, Aulmann G, Hellenbrecht A, Hägele M, Ohrloff C & Lüchtenberg M. Content quality of ophthalmic information on the internet. Ophthalmologica 2010; 224: 30-37.
21. Buys YM & Rafuse PE. Canadian Ophthalmological Society policy statement on the medical use of marijuana for glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol 2010; 45: 324-326.
22. Jampel H. American glaucoma society position statement: marijuana and the treatment of glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2010; 19: 75-76.
23. Greaves F, Pape UJ, King D et al. Associations between Web-based patient ratings and objective measures of hospital quality. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172: 435-436.
24. Garratt AM, Bjaertnes ØA, Krogstad U & Gulbrandsen P. The OutPatient Experiences Questionnaire (OPEQ): data quality, reliability, and validity in patients attending 52 Norwegian hospitals. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14: 433-437.
25. Van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert CHC, Taal E & Smit WMBernelot Moens HJ & Van de Laar MAFJ. Determinants of engagement in face-to-face and online patient support groups. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13: e106.
26. Van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, Seydel ER & Van de Laar MAFJ. Self-reported differences in empowerment between lurkers and posters in online patient support groups. J Med Internet Res 2008; 10: e18.
27. Jaganath D, Gill HK, Cohen AC & Young SD. Harnessing Online Peer Education (HOPE): integrating C-POL and social media to train peer leaders in HIV prevention. AIDS Care 2012; 24: 593-600.
28. Knezevic MZ, Bivolarevic IC, Peric TS & Jankovic SM. Using Facebook to increase spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf 2011; 34: 351-352.
29. Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13: e123.
30. Kahana A & Gottlieb JL. Ophthalmology on the internet: what do our patients find? Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122: 380-382.