The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Evidence-Based Approach to Interactive Health Communication<SUBTITLE>A Challenge to Medicine in the Information Age</SUBTITLE>
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the current status of interactive health communication (IHC) and propose evidence-based approaches to improve the quality of such applications. PARTICIPANTS: The Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, a 14-member, nonfederal panel with expertise in clinical medicine and nursing, public health, media and instructional design, health systems engineering, decision sciences, computer and communication technologies, and health communication, convened by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services. EVIDENCE: Published studies, online resources, expert panel opinions, and opinions from outside experts in fields related to IHC. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel met 9 times during more than 2 years. Government agencies and private-sector experts provided review and feedback on the panel's work. CONCLUSIONS: Interactive health communication applications have great potential to improve health, but they may also cause harm. To date, few applications have been adequately evaluated. Physicians and other health professionals should promote and participate in an evidence-based approach to the development and diffusion of IHC applications and endorse efforts to rigorously evaluate the safety, quality, and utility of these resources. A standardized reporting template is proposed to help developers and evaluators of IHC applications conduct evaluations and disclose their results and to help clinicians, purchasers, and consumers judge the quality of IHC applications.
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
Cites
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
More informative abstracts revisited.
Haynes, R. B., Mulrow, C. D., Huth, E. J., Altman, D. G., & Gardner, M. J. (1990) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-113-1-69 · Cited by 526
Access to Health Information and Support: A Public Highway or a Private Road?
Eng, T. R., Maxfield, A., Patrick, K., Deering, M. J., Ratzan, S. C., & Gustafson, D. H. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1371 · Cited by 335
Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Computer-Based Support System for Women with Breast Cancer
Gustafson, D., Wise, M., McTavish, F., Taylor, J. O., Wolberg, W., Stewart, J., Smalley, R., & Bosworth, K. (1993) · Journal of Psychosocial Oncology · doi:10.1300/j077v11n04_05 · Cited by 156
Cited by
Consumer health information seeking on the internet: the state of the art
Cline, R. J. W. (2001) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/16.6.671 · Cited by 1,708
Hesse, B. W., Nelson, D. E., Kreps, G. L., Croyle, R. T., Arora, N. K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618 · Cited by 1,523
A Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies
van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Nijland, N., van Limburg, M., Ossebaard, H. C., Kelders, S. M., Eysenbach, G., & Seydel, E. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1672 · Cited by 1,126
User-Centered Design and Interactive Health Technologies for Patients
DABBS, A. D. V., MYERS, B. A., MC CURRY, K. R., DUNBAR-JACOB, J., HAWKINS, R. P., BEGEY, A., & DEW, M. A. (2009) · CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing · doi:10.1097/ncn.0b013e31819f7c7c · Cited by 517
Costs and benefits of health information technology.
Shekelle, P. G., Morton, S. C., & Keeler, E. B. (2006) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcerta132 · Cited by 501
Metadata
- Authors
- Robinson, T. N.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1998-10-14
- Volume
- 280
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 1264
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2113069851
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 51.29
- 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
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.