The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Patients Looking for Information on the Internet and Seeking Teleadvice: Motivation, Expectations, and Misconceptions as Expressed in E-mails Sent to Physicians
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the motivation, expectations, and misconceptions of patients seeking teleadvice or medical information on the Internet. To explore the possible economics and problems of direct physician-to-patient teleadvice via electronic mails (e-mail). DESIGN: Exploratory survey of 209 unsolicited e-mails mostly sent to physicians by individuals seeking teleadvice. SETTING: University dermatology hospital with a major Web site on the World Wide Web. PATIENTS: Two hundred nine patients and information-seeking individuals, mainly with dermatologic problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Previous contacts with live physicians, disease duration, level of frustration expressed in the e-mails, and type of information sought. RESULTS: Many dermatologic patients who request teleadvice have a chronic disease (81%) and seek a second opinion. Seventeen percent express frustration about previous encounters with live physicians. Forty percent of all e-mails could have been answered by a librarian, 28% of all e-mails were suitable to be answered by a physician via e-mail alone, and in 27% of the cases any kind of consultation would not have been possible without seeing the patient. In at least 5 instances patients attempt self-diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: We found examples for the beneficial effects of the provision of medical information on the World Wide Web but also evidence suggesting that patients are trying to use information on the Internet as a supplement for physicians and that teleadvice might be overused by chronically ill and frustrated patients looking desperately for additional information. Telemedicine via e-mail could substitute a physician visit or telephone call in some cases, but many principal problems must be solved beforehand.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes.
Eysenbach, G. (2003) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.53.6.356 · Cited by 573
Self-citationEvaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study
Semigran, H. L., Linder, J. A., Gidengil, C., & Mehrotra, A. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h3480 · Cited by 489
The Impact of CyberHealthcare on the Physician–Patient Relationship
Anderson, J. G., Rainey, M. R., & Eysenbach, G. (2003) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1023/a:1021061229743 · Cited by 262
Self-citationEedy, D. J., & Wootton, R. (2001) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2001.04124.x · Cited by 224
Do Internet interventions for consumers cause more harm than good? A systematic review
Bessell, T. L., McDonald, S., Silagy, C. A., Anderson, J. N., Hiller, J. E., & Sansom, L. N. (2002) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00156.x · Cited by 162
Metadata
- Authors
- Eysenbach, G., & Diepgen, T. L.
- Venue
- Archives of Dermatology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1999-02-01
- Volume
- 135
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 151-6
- ISSN
- 0003-987X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2152115035
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 43.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patients Looking for Information on the Internet and Seeking Teleadvice: Motivation, Expectations, and Misconceptions as Expressed in E-mails Sent to Physicians. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archderm.135.2.151
- The paper
- Eysenbach, G., & Diepgen, T. L. (1999). Patients Looking for Information on the Internet and Seeking Teleadvice: Motivation, Expectations, and Misconceptions as Expressed in E-mails Sent to Physicians. Archives of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.135.2.151
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.