Suppr超能文献

医疗服务提供者对患者及护理人员使用在线健康社区的感知反应。

Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities.

作者信息

Rupert Douglas J, Moultrie Rebecca R, Read Jennifer Gard, Amoozegar Jacqueline B, Bornkessel Alexandra S, O'Donoghue Amie C, Sullivan Helen W

机构信息

Center for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.

Center for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Sep;96(3):320-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.015. Epub 2014 May 29.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Many Internet users seek health information through online health communities (OHCs) and other social media. Yet few studies assess how individuals use peer-generated health information, and many healthcare providers (HCPs) believe OHCs interfere with patient-provider relationships. This study explored how individuals use OHC content in clinical discussions and how HCPs react to it.

METHODS

We conducted in-person and virtual focus groups with patients/caregivers who visited OHCs (n=89). A trained moderator asked about reasons for membership, sharing OHC content with providers, HCP reactions, and preferred roles for HCPs. Two researchers independently coded verbatim transcripts (NVivo 9.2) and conducted thematic response analysis.

RESULTS

Participants described OHCs as supplementing information from HCPs, whom they perceived as too busy for detailed discussions. Almost all participants shared OHC content with HCPs, although only half cited OHCs as the source. Most HCPs reacted negatively to OHC content, making participants feel disempowered. Despite these reactions, participants continued to use OHCs, and most desired HCP feedback on the accuracy of OHC content.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals do not use OHCs to circumvent HCPs but instead to gather more in-depth information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

HCPs should discuss OHC content with patients to help them avoid misinformation and make more informed decisions.

摘要

目的

许多互联网用户通过在线健康社区(OHC)和其他社交媒体寻求健康信息。然而,很少有研究评估个人如何使用同伴生成的健康信息,而且许多医疗服务提供者(HCP)认为OHC会干扰医患关系。本研究探讨了个人在临床讨论中如何使用OHC内容以及HCP对此的反应。

方法

我们对访问过OHC的患者/护理人员进行了面对面和虚拟焦点小组访谈(n = 89)。一名经过培训的主持人询问了加入OHC的原因、与医疗服务提供者分享OHC内容的情况、HCP的反应以及HCP的理想角色。两名研究人员独立对逐字记录进行编码(NVivo 9.2)并进行主题反应分析。

结果

参与者将OHC描述为对医疗服务提供者提供信息的补充,他们认为医疗服务提供者太忙,无法进行详细讨论。几乎所有参与者都与医疗服务提供者分享了OHC内容,尽管只有一半的人将OHC作为信息来源。大多数医疗服务提供者对OHC内容反应消极,这让参与者感到无力。尽管有这些反应,参与者仍继续使用OHC,并且大多数人希望医疗服务提供者对OHC内容的准确性提供反馈。

结论

个人使用OHC并非为了绕过医疗服务提供者,而是为了收集更深入的信息。

实践意义

医疗服务提供者应与患者讨论OHC内容,以帮助他们避免错误信息并做出更明智的决定。

相似文献

1
Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities.
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Sep;96(3):320-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.015. Epub 2014 May 29.
2
Superusers' Engagement in Asthma Online Communities: Asynchronous Web-Based Interview Study.
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 23;22(6):e18185. doi: 10.2196/18185.
3
Peer-Generated Health Information: The Role of Online Communities in Patient and Caregiver Health Decisions.
J Health Commun. 2016 Nov;21(11):1187-1197. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2016.1237592. Epub 2016 Nov 2.
4
How patients' use of social media impacts their interactions with healthcare professionals.
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Mar;101(3):439-444. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.015. Epub 2017 Aug 30.
5
Examining Healthcare Professionals' Communication Around Decision-Making with Internet-Informed Patients.
Health Commun. 2024 May;39(6):1094-1101. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2023.2204580. Epub 2023 May 7.
8
Personas in online health communities.
J Biomed Inform. 2016 Oct;63:212-225. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.08.019. Epub 2016 Aug 26.

引用本文的文献

1
Patients' preferences on atopic dermatitis skincare and social media use: a qualitative study.
BMC Public Health. 2025 Feb 5;25(1):467. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-21640-8.
3
Perceptions of social media utilization among orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons.
J Foot Ankle Res. 2023 Sep 8;16(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s13047-023-00658-4.
4
The Role of Social Media in Breast Cancer Care and Survivorship: A Narrative Review.
Breast Care (Basel). 2023 Apr;18(3):193-199. doi: 10.1159/000531136. Epub 2023 May 19.
6
The emotional side of taking part in a cancer clinical trial.
PLoS One. 2023 Apr 24;18(4):e0284268. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284268. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

2
Preliminary benefits of information therapy.
J Prim Care Community Health. 2011 Jan 1;2(1):45-8. doi: 10.1177/2150131910385005.
3
Social media use among patients and caregivers: a scoping review.
BMJ Open. 2013 May 9;3(5):e002819. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002819.
4
Digital social networks and health.
Circulation. 2013 Apr 30;127(17):1829-36. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000897.
5
Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):276-84. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1078.
6
The virtual focus group: a modern methodology for facial attractiveness rating.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Sep;130(3):455e-461e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dcb48.
8
The patient-doctor relationship and online social networks: results of a national survey.
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Apr;27(4):403; author reply 404. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-1989-5.
9
Australian mental health consumers' priorities for research: qualitative findings from the SCOPE for Research project.
Health Expect. 2014 Jun;17(3):365-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00763.x. Epub 2012 Jan 4.
10
The patient-doctor relationship and online social networks: results of a national survey.
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Oct;26(10):1168-74. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1761-2. Epub 2011 Jun 25.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验