The E-Patient

Open access

Summary

Advanced information technologies have entered all spheres of human activities. In healthcare, this happens much too fast and encompasses all its branches. How does the Internet form the relationship between patients and medical staff? What information do patients seek and how do they get it? What problems arise during the communication process via new means? How can we describe an e-patient? How does the Internet model the doctor-patient relationship in case of cancer, one of the most dramatic diseases? Are students prepared to face an e-patient and how are they trained to do it? What is to be done to optimize internet communication between patients and health providers? This review analyzes information on these issues and outlines some opportunities for solving problems arising against the background of IT use in health care.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. NUA. How many online? [Internet]; [cited 2018 Mar 08]. Available from: http://www.nua.ie/surveys/howmanyonline/.

  • 2. Eysenbach G. The impact of the Internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin.2003;53(6):356– 71.

  • 3. Are online doctors the best medicine? [Internet]. New York: USA Today. c2010. [cited 2018 Mar 08]. New York Office; [about 4 screens]. Available from: https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/healthcare/doctorsnurses/2010-11-19-1Ateledoc19_ST_N.htm

  • 4. van Woerkum CM. The Internet and primary care physicians: coping with different expectations. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 77 (4 Suppl):1016S-1018S.

  • 5. Meyers AD. eMedicine Otolaryngology: an online textbook for ENT specialists. Ear Nose Throat J. 2000;79(4):268-71.

  • 6. Hallam K. Physicians caught in the Web. Thanks to Internet doc disciplinary data now just a mouse click away. Mod Healthc. 2000;30(37):30-2.

  • 7. Giveon S Yaphe J Hekselman I Mahamid S Hermoni D. The e-patient: a survey of Israeli primary care physicians’ responses to patients’ use of online information during the consultation. Isr Med Assoc J. 2009;11(9):537-41.

  • 8. Ferguson T Dreiss M Fox S Frydman G Graedon J Graedon T et al. e-Patients: How they can help us help health care. San Francisco; 2007.

  • 9. Masters K. Opening the non-open access medical journals: Internet-based sharing of journal articles on a medical web site. Int J Med Inform. 2008;5(1):[about 6.]. Available from: http://ispub.com/IJMI/5/1/6971

  • 10. Masters K. Articles shared on a medical web site – an international survey of non-open access journal editors. Int J Med Inform. 2010;5(2):[ about 6 p]. Available from: https://print.ispub.com/api/0/ispub-article/13669.

  • 11. Marshall WW Haley RW. Use of a secure Internet Web site for collaborative medical research. JAMA. 2000;284(14):1843-9.

  • 12. Baker L Wagner TH Singer S Bundorf MK. Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: results from a national survey. JAMA 2003;289(18):2400-6.

  • 13. Fox S. The Online health care revolution: how the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington: The Pew Internet and American Life Project;.2000.

  • 14. Pereira JL Koski S Hanson J Bruera ED Mackey JR. Internet usage among women with breast cancer: an exploratory study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2000;1(2):148-53.

  • 15. Norum J. Evaluation of Norwegian cancer hospitals Web sites and explorative survey among cancer patients on their use of the Internet. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(4):e30.

  • 16. Norum J Grev A Moen MA Balteskard L Holthe K. Information and communication technology in oncology. Patients’ and relatives’ experiences and suggestions. Support Care Cancer. 2003;11(5):286-93.

  • 17. Mills ME Davidson R. Cancer patients’ sources of information: use and quality issues. Psychooncology. 2002;11(5):371-8.

  • 18. Oncologists disagree on impact of patient Internet use. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53(3):135-7.

  • 19. Helft PR Hlubocky F Daugherty CK. American oncologists’ views of Internet use by cancer patients: a mail survey of American Society of Clinical Oncology members. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(5):942-7.

  • 20. Irving L Klegar-Levy K McConnaughey J Everette DW Reynolds T Lader W. Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. A report on the telecommunications and information technology gap in America. Washington: National Telecommunications and Information Administration;1999.

  • 21. Brodie M Flournoy RE Altman DE Blendon RJ Benson JM Rosenbaum MD. Health information the Internet and the digital divide. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000;19(6):255-65.

  • 22. Metz JM Devine P DeNittis A Hampshire M Godwein J Whittington R. A multi-institutional study of Internet utilization by radiation oncology patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56(4):1201-5.

  • 23. Smith RP Devine P Jones H DeNittis A. Whittington R. Metz JM. Internet use by patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Urology. 2003;62(2):273-7.

  • 24. Satterlund MJ McCaul KD Sandgren AK. Information gathering over time by breast cancer patients. J Med Internet Res 2003;5(3):e15.

  • 25. Peterson MW Fretz PC. Patient use of the Internet for information in a lung cancer clinic. Chest. 2003;123(2):452-7.

  • 26. Diefenbach MA Dorsey J Uzzo RG Hanks GE Greenberg RE Horwitz E et al al. Decision-making strategies for patients with localized prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 2002;20(1):55-62.

  • 27. Raupach JC Hiller JE. Information and support for women following the primary treatment of breast cancer. Health Expect. 2002;5(4):289-301.

  • 28. Yakren S Shi W Thaler H Agre P Bach PB Schrag D et al. Use of the Internet and other information resources among adult cancer patients and their companions. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001;20:398a.

  • 29. Vordermark D Kölbl O Flentje M. The Internet as a source of medical information. Investigation in a mixed cohort of radiotherapy patients. Strahlenther Onkol 2000;176(11):532-5.

  • 30. Fleisher J. Relationships among Internet health information use patient behavior and self-efficacy in newly diagnosed cancer patients who contact the National Cancer Institute’s Atlantic Region Cancer Information Service. Proc AMIA Annual Symp.2002:260-4.

  • 31. Rheingold H. The virtual community. London: Addison-Wesley;1993.

  • 32. Wellman B. An electronic group is virtually a social network. Kiesler S editor. Cultures of the Internet. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997.

  • 33. Chen X Siu LL. Impact of the media and the Internet on oncology: survey of cancer patients and oncologists in Canada. J Clin Oncol. 200;19(23):4291-7.

  • 34. Murray E Lo B Pollack L Donelan K Catania J Lee K et al. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: National U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. physicians. J Med Internet Res 2003;5(3):e17.

  • 35. Eysenbach G Powell J Kuss O Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287(20):2691-2700.

  • 36. Lawrence S Giles CL. Accessibility of information on the Web. Nature. 1999;400(6740):107-9.

  • 37. Podichetty VK Booher J Whitfield M Biscup RS. Assessment of Internet use and effects among healthcare professionals: a cross sectional survey. Postgrad Med J. 2006;82(966):274-9.

  • 38. Ferguson T. E-Patient Scholars Working Group. 2007. E-patients: how they can help us heal healthcare. Patient advocacy for health care quality. Strategies for achieving patient-centered care. Canada: Jones and Bartley;2008 p. 93-121.

  • 39. Masters K Ng‘ambi D Todd G. “I found it on the Internet”: preparing for the e-patient in Oman. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2010;10(2):169-79.

  • 40. Fraval A Chong YM Holcdorf D Plunkett V Tran P. Internet use by orthopaedic outpatients – current trends and practices. Australas Med J. 2012;5(12):633-8.

  • 41. Colineau N Paris C. Talking about your health to strangers: understanding the use of online social networks by patients. New review of hypermedia and multimedia. 2010;16(1-2):141– 60.

  • 42. Fox S Duggan M. Health online. Washington: Pew Research Center; 2013.

  • 43. 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.

  • 44. Fox S. E-patients with a disability or chronic disease. October 8;2007;Washington: Pew Research Center;2007.

  • 45. Hay MC Cadigan RJ Khanna D Strathmann C Lieber E Altman R et al. Prepared patients: Internet information seeking by new rheumatology patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(4):575-82.

  • 46. Klinar I Balazin A Baršić B Tiljak H. Identification of general characteristics motivation and satisfaction of internet-based medical consultation service users in Croatia. Croat Med J. 2011;52(4):557-65.

  • 47. Harper L Brock SM. The eventuality of the e-patient. Med Teach. 2016;38(6):635.

  • 48. Masters K. Preparing medical students for the e-patient. Med Teach. 2017;39(7):681-5.

  • 49. Bovi AM. 2003. Ethical guidelines for use of electronic mail between patients and physicians. Am J Bioeth..2003;3(3):W-IF2.

  • 50. Thompson LA Dawson K Ferdig R Black EW Boyer J Coutts J et all. The intersection of online social networking with medical professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(7):954-7.

  • 51. Jain SH. Practicing medicine in the age of Facebook. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(7):649-51.

  • 52. Garner J O’Sullivan H. Facebook and the professional behaviors of undergraduate medical students. Clin Teach. 2010;7(2):112-5.

  • 53. Gray K Annabell L Kennedy G. Medical students’ use of Facebook to support learning: insights from four case studies. Med Teach. 2010;32(12):971-6.

  • 54. Bosslet GT Torke AM Hickman SE Terry CL Helft PR. The patient-doctor relationship and online social networks: results of a national survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(10):1168-74.

  • 55. Televox. Technology beyond the exam room: How digital media is helping doctors deliver the highest level of care [Internet]. 2012: [cited 2018 Mar 08]; [about 31 p.]. Available from: https://www.televox.com/downloads/technology

  • 56. Shachak A Jadad A. Electronic health records in the age of social networks and global telecommunications. JAMA. 2010;303(5):452-3.

  • 57. Dalal AK Schnipper J Massaro A Hanna J Mlaver E McNally K et al. A web-based and mobile patient-centered “microblog” messaging platform to improve care team communication in acute care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(e1):e178-e184.

  • 58. Masters K. The e-patient and medical students. Med Teach. 2016;38(3):314-6.

  • 59. Eysenbach G Kummervold PE. “Is cybermedicine killing you?” – the story of a Cochrane disaster. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(2):e21; doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.2.e21.

  • 60. Marshall LA Williams D. Health information: does quality count for the consumer?: How consumers evaluate the quality of health information materials across a variety of media. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 2006;38(3):141-56.

  • 61. Sillence E Briggs P Harris P Fishwick L. Changes in online health usage over the last 5 years. Proceeding. of the Conference of human factors in computing systems; 2002 Apr 22-27; Montreal Canada. 2006. p. 1331-6.

  • 62. Ritterband LM Andersson G Christensen HM Carlbring P Cuijpers P. Directions for the International society for research on Internet interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(3):e23.

  • 63. Anderson C. The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more. 1st ed. New York: Hyperion; 2008.

  • 64. Potts HWW. Is e-health progressing faster than e-health researchers? J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(3):e24. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.3.e24.

  • 65. Huang E Wang J Liu T. Interactive e-health tools for patients on Chinese hospitals’ websites. Int J Healthc Manag. 2014;7(2):75-83.

  • 66. Hoque MR Bao Y Sorwar G. Investigating factors influencing the adoption of e-Health in developing countries: a patient’s perspective. Inform Health Soc Care. 2017;42(1):1-17.

  • 67. Jeong da E Kim KO Jang BI Kim EY Jung JT Jeon SW et al. The clinical usefulness of a web-based messaging system between patients with Crohn disease and their physicians. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(26):e4028.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 458 284 23
PDF Downloads 194 100 7