Dataset Information

The extent to which cancer patients trust in cancer-related online information: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Background:The use of the internet to satisfy information needs is widespread among cancer patients. Patients' decisions regarding whether to act upon the information they find strongly depend on the trustworthiness of the information and the medium. Patients who are younger, more highly educated and female are more likely to trust online information. The objectives of this systematic review were to examine the extent to which cancer patients trust in cancer-related online information, internet websites as a source of cancer-related information or the internet as a medium of cancer information. Methods:A systematic review was conducted using five databases (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017070190). Studies of any kind were included if they measured cancer patients' trust in online health information. Study quality was assessed using the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank. A narrative synthesis was undertaken to examine the included studies. Results:Of the 7,314 citations obtained by the search, seven cross-sectional studies were included in the synthesis. A total of 1,054 patients reported having some or a great deal of trust in online cancer information; 154 patients reported moderately trusting such information; and 833 patients reported having no or little trust in online cancer information, internet websites as a source of cancer-related information or the internet as a medium of cancer-related information. Two of the seven studies reported between group comparisons for the above-stated patient characteristics. The methodological quality of the included studies was diverse. Conclusion:The results of the included studies indicates that approximately half of cancer patients appear to trust cancer-specific online information, internet websites as a source of cancer-related information or the internet as an information medium. However, the small number of included studies, high heterogeneity of participants, methods and outcomes calls for further systematic research. It is important to understand that cancer patients do and will increasingly use trusted cancer information websites to search for information concerning their disease. Therefore, physicians and other health care providers should provide more support and advice to these patients.

SUBMITTER: Lange L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6776066 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The extent to which cancer patients trust in cancer-related online information: a systematic review.

Lange Lukas L Peikert Mona Leandra ML Bleich Christiane C Schulz Holger H

PeerJ 20190930

<h4>Background</h4>The use of the internet to satisfy information needs is widespread among cancer patients. Patients' decisions regarding whether to act upon the information they find strongly depend on the trustworthiness of the information and the medium. Patients who are younger, more highly educated and female are more likely to trust online information. The objectives of this systematic review were to examine the extent to which cancer patients trust in cancer-related online information, i ...[more]

PMID: 31592341

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: Disparities in cancer care contribute to higher rates of cancer mortality. Online health information would be a resource for cancer patients to obtain knowledge and make health decisions. However, factors that hinder or facilitate online searching behaviours among patients remain unexplored. The current systematic review aims to identify and synthesise evidence of cancer patients' barriers to and facilitators of online health information-seeking behaviours. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus) were systematically searched, and a total of 123 full-text studies were reviewed of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Results: Thematic analysis was performed to identify barriers and facilitators of online health information-seeking behaviours. Seven key themes were identified: (1) socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, education, income, ethnicity and language), (2) psychosocial aspects (psychological wellbeing, need for a face to face contact, motivation, support), (3) accessibility (Internet access, residence), (4) quality and quantity of information (amount, reliability), (5) cancer stage and symptoms (time since diagnosis, experiencing symptoms), (6) aspects related to healthcare professionals (relationship with the patients and opinions on online health information) and (7) digital literacy (computer skills and literacy). Conclusions: Findings underscore the significance of recognising the multifaceted nature of barriers and facilitators affecting cancer patients' online health information-seeking behaviours. A strong link between these factors and cancer patients' ability to make informed decisions and cope effectively with their diagnosis emerged. Consequently, addressing these barriers and leveraging the identified facilitators could lead to improvements in patient-centred care, ultimately contributing to better healthcare services and informed decision-making for cancer patients. Future research should prioritise exploring strategies for enhancing cancer care accessibility across all stakeholders involved.RegistrationCRD42023408091.

Project description:BackgroundInformation about effects of treatments based on unsystematic reviews of research evidence may be misleading. However, finding trustworthy information about the effects of treatments based on systematic reviews, which is accessible to patients and the public can be difficult. The objectives of this study were to identify and evaluate free sources of health information for patients and the public that provide information about effects of treatments based on systematic reviews.MethodsWe reviewed websites that we and our colleagues knew of, searched for government sponsored health information websites, and searched for online sources of health information that provide evidence-based information. To be included in our review, a website had to be available in English, freely accessible, and intended for patients and the public. In addition, it had to have a broad scope, not limited to specific conditions or types of treatments. It had to include a description of how the information is prepared and the description had to include a statement about using systematic reviews. We compared the included websites by searching for information about the effects of eight treatments.ResultsThree websites met our inclusion criteria: Cochrane Evidence, Informed Health, and PubMed Health. The first two websites produce content, whereas PubMed Health aggregated content. A fourth website that met our inclusion criteria, CureFacts, was under development. Cochrane Evidence provides plain language summaries of Cochrane Reviews (i.e. summaries that are intended for patients and the public). They are translated to several other languages. No information besides treatment effects is provided. Informed Health provides information about treatment effects together with other information for a wide range of topics. PubMed Health was discontinued in October 2018. It included a large number of systematic reviews of treatment effects with plain language summaries for Cochrane Reviews and some other reviews. None of the three websites included links to ongoing trials, and information about treatment effects was not reported consistently on any of the websites.ConclusionIt is possible for patients and the public to access trustworthy information about the effects of treatments using the two of the websites included in this review.

Project description:BackgroundInformation-seeking behaviour is necessary to improve knowledge on diabetes therapy and complications. Combined with other self-management skills and autonomous handling of the disease, it is essential for achieving treatment targets. However, a systematic review addressing this topic is lacking. The aims of this systematic review were to identify and analyse existing knowledge of information-seeking behaviour: (1) types information-seeking behaviour, (2) information sources, (3) the content of searched information, and (4) associated variables that may affect information-seeking behaviour.MethodsThe systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) requirements. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CCMed, ERIC, Journals@OVID, Deutsches Ärzteblatt and Karlsruher virtueller Katalog (KvK) databases were searched. Publications dealing with information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus published up to June 2015 were included. A forward citation tracking was performed in September 2016 and June 2017. Additionally, an update of the two main databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL) was conducted, considering studies published up to July 2017. Studies published in languages other than English or German were excluded, as well as letters, short reports, editorials, comments and discussion papers. A study selection and the critical appraisal of the selected studies were performed independently by two reviewers. A third reviewer was consulted if any disagreement was found. Data extraction and content analysis were performed using selected dimensions of Wilson's 'model of information behaviour'.ResultsTwenty-six studies were included. Five 'types of information-seeking behaviour' were identified, e.g. passive and active search. The 'Internet' and 'healthcare professionals' were the most frequently reported sources. 'Diet', 'complications', 'exercise' and 'medications and pharmacological interactions' were the most frequently identified content of information. Seven main categories including associated variables were identified, e.g. 'socioeconomic', 'duration of DM', and 'lifestyle'.ConclusionThe systematic review provides a valuable overview of available knowledge on the information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus, although there are only a few studies. There was a high heterogeneity regarding the research question, design, methods and participants. Although the Internet is often used to seek information, health professionals still play an important role in supporting their patients' information-seeking behaviour. Specific needs of people with diabetes must be taken into consideration.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016037312.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The number of patient online reviews (PORs) has grown significantly, and PORs have played an increasingly important role in patients' choice of health care providers. OBJECTIVE:The objective of our study was to systematically review studies on PORs, summarize the major findings and study characteristics, identify literature gaps, and make recommendations for future research. METHODS:A major database search was completed in January 2019. Studies were included if they (1) focused on PORs of physicians and hospitals, (2) reported qualitative or quantitative results from analysis of PORs, and (3) peer-reviewed empirical studies. Study characteristics and major findings were synthesized using predesigned tables. RESULTS:A total of 63 studies (69 articles) that met the above criteria were included in the review. Most studies (n=48) were conducted in the United States, including Puerto Rico, and the remaining were from Europe, Australia, and China. Earlier studies (published before 2010) used content analysis with small sample sizes; more recent studies retrieved and analyzed larger datasets using machine learning technologies. The number of PORs ranged from fewer than 200 to over 700,000. About 90% of the studies were focused on clinicians, typically specialists such as surgeons; 27% covered health care organizations, typically hospitals; and some studied both. A majority of PORs were positive and patients' comments on their providers were favorable. Although most studies were descriptive, some compared PORs with traditional surveys of patient experience and found a high degree of correlation and some compared PORs with clinical outcomes but found a low level of correlation. CONCLUSIONS:PORs contain valuable information that can generate insights into quality of care and patient-provider relationship, but it has not been systematically used for studies of health care quality. With the advancement of machine learning and data analysis tools, we anticipate more research on PORs based on testable hypotheses and rigorous analytic methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42018085057; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=85057 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76ddvTZ1C).

Project description:BackgroundDigitalization and the increasing availability of online information have changed the way in which information is searched for and retrieved by the public and by health professionals. The technical developments in the last two decades have transformed the methods of information retrieval. Although systematic evidence exists on the general information needs of specialists, and in particular, family physicians (FPs), there have been no recent systematic reviews to specifically address the needs of FPs and any barriers that may exist to accessing online health information.ObjectiveThis review aims to provide an up-to-date perspective on the needs of FPs in searching, retrieving, and using online information.MethodsThis systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies searched a multitude of databases spanning the years 2000 to 2020 (search date January 2020). Studies that analyzed the online information needs of FPs, any barriers to the accessibility of information, and their information-seeking behaviors were included. Two researchers independently scrutinized titles and abstracts, analyzing full-text papers for their eligibility, the studies therein, and the data obtained from them.ResultsThe initial search yielded 4541 studies for initial title and abstract screening. Of the 144 studies that were found to be eligible for full-text screening, 41 were finally included. A total of 20 themes were developed and summarized into 5 main categories: individual needs of FPs before the search; access needs, including factors that would facilitate or hinder information retrieval; quality needs of the information to hand; utilization needs of the information available; and implication needs for everyday practice.ConclusionsThis review suggests that searching, accessing, and using online information, as well as any pre-existing needs, barriers, or demands, should not be perceived as separate entities but rather be regarded as a sequential process. Apart from accessing information and evaluating its quality, FPs expressed concerns regarding the applicability of this information to their everyday practice and its subsequent relevance to patient care. Future online information resources should cater to the needs of the primary care setting and seek to address the way in which such resources may be adapted to these specific requirements.

Dataset Information

The extent to which cancer patients trust in cancer-related online information: a systematic review.

Publications

The extent to which cancer patients trust in cancer-related online information: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets