scholarly journals Frequent Internet Users May Prefer More Health Care Information and Participation in Decision-Making

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eamon C. Tewell

Objective – To determine whether there is a significant relationship between patients’ frequency of Internet use and their health care information and decision-making preferences. Design – Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Settings – Undergraduate classes at a large state university and senior-oriented computer classes at public libraries and senior centers. Subjects – 438 respondents, including 226 undergraduates (mean age 20) and 212 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 72). Methods – Respondents were administered the Health Information Wants Questionnaire (HIWQ), a 21-item instrument designed to measure preferences for 7 types of health information and decision-making, in group settings. Main Results – The younger age group spent significantly more time online compared to the older age group. Frequent Internet users in both populations expressed an overall preference for more information regarding diagnosis, but less information for psychosocial and health care provider concerns. Internet use was positively correlated to the overall preference rating, leading the researchers to suggest that, as a whole, regular Internet users prefer more information and independence in decision-making. Conclusions – The study concludes that Internet use frequency is associated with an overall preference for obtaining health information and participating in decision making. Internet use as related to different types of preferences is inconsistent. Age was not found to be associated with the overall preference rating, and time spent online is proposed to be a stronger indicator of respondents’ health information preferences. The authors suggest that future studies utilizing the HIWQ take a longitudinal approach in order to better track how patient preferences for information may evolve over time.

2015 ◽  
Vol 60 (9) ◽  
pp. 1276-1281 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. K. Delgado ◽  
M. R. Gazzotti ◽  
I. L. Santoro ◽  
A. K. Carvalho ◽  
J. R. Jardim ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
pp. 2134-2142
Author(s):  
Abrams A. O’Byuonge ◽  
Leida Chen

The increasing use of the Internet by consumers gave rise to an information boom to health-care consumers. Not only could the Internet be used as a communication tool to provide information that would allow patients to make informed decisions, but it could also be used to generate revenue for investors. The dot-com boom of the late 1990s exploited this opportunity, targeting the health-care system, a $1.7 trillion market in the United States alone. Overall, the health-care system is wasteful and costly (Itagaki, Berlin, & Schatz, 2002), and as a result, health-care IT was touted as the magic pill for cutting costs. The Internet boom of the late 1990s saw the emergence of e-health: the delivery of health services and health information through the Internet and Internet-related technologies (Eysenbach, 2001). Leading the many entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who stepped in to seize a piece of the health-care industry cake were WebMD Corp., an online provider of medical information for doctors and consumers in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, and DrKoop.com, an Austin, Texas-born company that later moved to Santa Monica, California, and began doing business as Dr. Koop LifeCare Corp. Dr. C. Everett Koop, the former U.S. surgeon general, had spent over 6 decades in the medical profession. He envisioned the Internet as an opportunity to change the health-care delivery system in order to empower individuals to take charge of their own health care (Musselwhite, 2002). With this vision and his reputation as an advocate for health-care reform, along with the help of two budding entrepreneurs, Don Hackett and John Zacarro, the trio opened a business-to-consumer Internet portal: DrKoop.com. The portal was designed to provide health information to consumers in areas such as chronic illness, food and nutrition, fitness, and medical breakthroughs. At the beginning, the Web site was an overwhelming success, receiving a million hits per month after 2 years of operation, and about 4 million unique visitors per month at its peak. The portal included a personal medical-records system that facilitated the cross-referencing of medications for interactions, as well as the storage of medical reports that could then be accessed by both patients and physicians. DrKoop.com’s public woes began in February 2000 when its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, issued a “going concern qualification,” an ominous warning that highlighted the precarious financial situation the Internet-based health service was in Cleary (2000). By the end of 2000, DrKoop.com was still struggling, and in the first 9 months of 2001 alone, the company’s losses were nearly 3 times its revenue. According to the Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC) filings, from January 1999 until the service’s liquidation in September 2001, DrKoop.com’s losses stood at $193.6 million, dwarfing the $41 million revenue generated during the period. At the site’s peak in July 1999, DrKoop.com’s stock rose to $45.75 per share on the NASDAQ, but was worth $0.12 at the time of bankruptcy filing. In July 2002, Vitacost.com, a privately held online seller of nutritional supplements, paid a paltry $186,000 in cash for DrKoop.com’s assets, which included the brand name, trademarks, domain names, the Web site, and the e-mail addresses of its registered users. WebMD, originally called Healtheon/WebMD, was founded by Jim Clark, who also founded Silicon Graphics and Netscape. Clark’s vision was to connect insurance companies, doctors, and patients over the Internet in order to lower costs and reduce paper trails. Rather than building its own products and services, Healtheon used its highly valued stock to finance acquisitions of leading companies in the industries it targeted. In 1999, it acquired WebMD.com and OnHealth, both leading health portals, giving it access to the consumer health market (Salkever, 2000). Though WebMD lost $6.5 billion on revenue of $530.2 million in the first 9 months of 2001, it still continued to expand long after DrKoop.com had dropped off the radar screen. For the fiscal year ending in December 2003, WebMD reported revenues of $964 million, an increase of 10.6% on the previous year’s revenues, which totaled $871.7 million. Of the 11 health-care mergers and acquisition deals in the first 7 months of 2004, valued at $900 million, WebMD was the leading acquirer (Abrams, 2004). Two of WebMD’s high-profile acquisitions in 2004 were the $160 million cash purchase of ViPS, a privately held provider in Baltimore, Maryland, of information technology to the government, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and other health-care insurers; and the $40 million acquisition of Dakota Imaging Inc., a private company in Columbia, Maryland, that offered automated health-care claims processing technology. As industry leaders, WebMD and DrKoop.com faced competition from both health-care information portals (such as HealthGrades.com, MDConsult, ZoeMed.com) and online pharmacies that provided consumers with one-stop shopping for medications and medical information (Walgreens.com, drugstore.com, Webvan.com). The threat from the health-care information portals, nevertheless, was minimal due to their limited brand recognition and information coverage. In the online pharmacy sector, however, Walgreens.com gained a substantial market share by combining the best of both worlds: complementing its physical stores located throughout the country by offering online customer service, convenience, and real-time access to a health library that provided comprehensive information on prescription drugs, insurance, and health issues.


Author(s):  
Abrams A. O’Byuonge ◽  
Leida Chen

The increasing use of the Internet by consumers gave rise to an information boom to health-care consumers. Not only could the Internet be used as a communication tool to provide information that would allow patients to make informed decisions, but it could also be used to generate revenue for investors. The dot-com boom of the late 1990s exploited this opportunity, targeting the health-care system, a $1.7 trillion market in the United States alone. Overall, the health-care system is wasteful and costly (Itagaki, Berlin, & Schatz, 2002), and as a result, health-care IT was touted as the magic pill for cutting costs. The Internet boom of the late 1990s saw the emergence of e-health: the delivery of health services and health information through the Internet and Internet-related technologies (Eysenbach, 2001). Leading the many entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who stepped in to seize a piece of the health-care industry cake were WebMD Corp., an online provider of medical information for doctors and consumers in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, and DrKoop.com, an Austin, Texas-born company that later moved to Santa Monica, California, and began doing business as Dr. Koop LifeCare Corp. Dr. C. Everett Koop, the former U.S. surgeon general, had spent over 6 decades in the medical profession. He envisioned the Internet as an opportunity to change the health-care delivery system in order to empower individuals to take charge of their own health care (Musselwhite, 2002). With this vision and his reputation as an advocate for health-care reform, along with the help of two budding entrepreneurs, Don Hackett and John Zacarro, the trio opened a business-to-consumer Internet portal: DrKoop.com. The portal was designed to provide health information to consumers in areas such as chronic illness, food and nutrition, fitness, and medical breakthroughs. At the beginning, the Web site was an overwhelming success, receiving a million hits per month after 2 years of operation, and about 4 million unique visitors per month at its peak. The portal included a personal medical-records system that facilitated the cross-referencing of medications for interactions, as well as the storage of medical reports that could then be accessed by both patients and physicians. DrKoop.com’s public woes began in February 2000 when its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, issued a “going concern qualification,” an ominous warning that highlighted the precarious financial situation the Internet-based health service was in Cleary (2000). By the end of 2000, DrKoop.com was still struggling, and in the first 9 months of 2001 alone, the company’s losses were nearly 3 times its revenue. According to the Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC) filings, from January 1999 until the service’s liquidation in September 2001, DrKoop.com’s losses stood at $193.6 million, dwarfing the $41 million revenue generated during the period. At the site’s peak in July 1999, DrKoop.com’s stock rose to $45.75 per share on the NASDAQ, but was worth $0.12 at the time of bankruptcy filing. In July 2002, Vitacost.com, a privately held online seller of nutritional supplements, paid a paltry $186,000 in cash for DrKoop.com’s assets, which included the brand name, trademarks, domain names, the Web site, and the e-mail addresses of its registered users. WebMD, originally called Healtheon/WebMD, was founded by Jim Clark, who also founded Silicon Graphics and Netscape. Clark’s vision was to connect insurance companies, doctors, and patients over the Internet in order to lower costs and reduce paper trails. Rather than building its own products and services, Healtheon used its highly valued stock to finance acquisitions of leading companies in the industries it targeted. In 1999, it acquired WebMD.com and OnHealth, both leading health portals, giving it access to the consumer health market (Salkever, 2000). Though WebMD lost $6.5 billion on revenue of $530.2 million in the first 9 months of 2001, it still continued to expand long after DrKoop.com had dropped off the radar screen. For the fiscal year ending in December 2003, WebMD reported revenues of $964 million, an increase of 10.6% on the previous year’s revenues, which totaled $871.7 million. Of the 11 health-care mergers and acquisition deals in the first 7 months of 2004, valued at $900 million, WebMD was the leading acquirer (Abrams, 2004). Two of WebMD’s high-profile acquisitions in 2004 were the $160 million cash purchase of ViPS, a privately held provider in Baltimore, Maryland, of information technology to the government, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and other health-care insurers; and the $40 million acquisition of Dakota Imaging Inc., a private company in Columbia, Maryland, that offered automated health-care claims processing technology. As industry leaders, WebMD and DrKoop.com faced competition from both health-care information portals (such as HealthGrades.com, MDConsult, ZoeMed.com) and online pharmacies that provided consumers with one-stop shopping for medications and medical information (Walgreens.com, drugstore.com, Webvan.com). The threat from the health-care information portals, nevertheless, was minimal due to their limited brand recognition and information coverage. In the online pharmacy sector, however, Walgreens.com gained a substantial market share by combining the best of both worlds: complementing its physical stores located throughout the country by offering online customer service, convenience, and real-time access to a health library that provided comprehensive information on prescription drugs, insurance, and health issues.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hena Naz Din ◽  
Corinne McDaniels-Davidson ◽  
Jesse Nodora ◽  
Hala Madanat

BACKGROUND Internet use for health information is important, given the rise of electronic health (eHealth) that integrates technology into health care. Despite the perceived widespread use of the internet, a persistent “digital divide” exists in which many individuals have ready access to the internet and others do not. To date, most published reports have compared characteristics of internet users seeking health information vs nonusers. However, there is little understanding of the differences between internet users seeking health information online and users who do not seek such information online. Understanding these differences could enable targeted outreach for health interventions and promotion of eHealth technologies. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess population-level characteristics associated with different types of internet use, particularly for seeking online health information. METHODS The 2015-2016 California Health Interview Survey datasets were used for this study. Internet use was classified as never used the internet (Never use), ever used the internet but not to search for health information in the last 12 months (Use not for health), and ever used the internet and have used it to search for health information in the last 12 months (Use for health). Weighted multinomial logistic regression was used to assess sociodemographic and health characteristics associated with types of internet use. Findings are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS Among 42,087 participants (weighted sample of 29,236,426), 19% reported Never Use of the internet, 27.9% reported Use not for health, and 53.1% reported Use for health. Compared to Never Use individuals, Use for health individuals were more likely to be younger (OR: 0.1, 95% CI 0.1-0.2 for ≥60 years vs <60 years), female (OR: 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9 compared to males), and non-Hispanic white (OR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.4-0.7 for Latinos and OR: 0.2, 95% CI 0.2-0.4 for African Americans) and have a higher socioeconomic status (>400% of Federal Poverty Guidelines; OR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.4-2.4). Overall, characteristics for the Use not for health and Use for health groups were similar, except for those with lower levels of education and respondents not having visited a physician in the last year. For these two characteristics, the Use not for health group was more similar to the Never Use group. CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that a digital divide characterized by sociodemographic and health information exists across three types of users. Our results are in line with those of previous studies on the divide, specifically with regard to disparities in use and access related to age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Disparities in online health-seeking behavior may reflect existing disparities in health care access extending into a new era of health technology. These findings support the need for interventions to target internet access and health literacy among Never Use and Use not for health groups.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Bell ◽  
Michelle Condren

Communication with children and adolescents is an area that requires special attention. It is our job as health care professionals to ensure that the information being relayed is provided at a level that can be understood, to ensure patient safety as well as keep a child or adolescent engaged in their own medical care and decision making. This article discusses the importance of communication with children, adolescents, and their caregivers. It focuses on the overall importance of health literacy in communicating health care information to both caregivers and their children. Included are points to consider when communicating at different developmental stages, as well as strategies to help establish rapport. Lastly, the importance of technology and how it can help facilitate communication with this population is introduced.


2011 ◽  
Vol 50 (04) ◽  
pp. 308-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Asikainen ◽  
M. Gissler ◽  
K. Siponen ◽  
M. Maass ◽  
K. Saranto ◽  
...  

SummaryBackground: The implementation of a technology such as health information exchange (HIE) through a Regional Health Information System (RHIS) may improve the mobilization of health care information electronically across organizations. There is a need to coordinate care and bring together regional and local stakeholders.Objectives: To describe how HIE had influenced health care delivery in one hospital district area in Finland.Method: Trend analysis was used to evaluate the influence of a regional HIE. We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal study for the period 2004–2008 for the eleven federations of municipalities in the study area. We reviewed statistical health data from the time of implementation of an RHIS. The t-test was used to determine statistical significance. The selected outcomes were the data obtained from the regional database on total appointments, emergency department visits, laboratory tests and radiology examinations, and selected laboratory tests and radiology examinations carried out in both primary care and special health care.Results: Access to HIE may have influenced health care delivery in the study area. There are indications that there is a connection between access to regional HIE and the number of laboratory tests and radiology examinations performed in both primary care and specialized health care, as observed in the decreased frequency in outcomes such as radiology examinations, number of appointments, and emergency department visits in the study environment. The decreased frequencies of the latter suggest an increased efficiency of outpatient care, but we were not able to estimate to what extent the readily available comprehensive clinical information contributed to these trends.Conclusion: Outcome assessment of HIE through an RHIS is essential for the success of health information technology (HIT) and as evidence to use in the decision-making process. As health care information becomes more digital, it increases the potential for a strong HIE effect on health care delivery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document