CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 151Electronic Health Records SystemsHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityHealth Sciences Research and Education

For what purpose and reasons do doctors use the Internet: A systematic review

Masters, Ken·2008·International Journal of Medical Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.10.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives To determine doctors' reasons for using the Internet, and the factors that influence their usage.Data sources A systematic review of 38 studies, from 1994 to 2004, describing surveys of doctors' Internet usage.Results All of the studies were in the developed world, primarily in North America. Approximately 60-70% of doctors have access to the Internet, but in several studies access is more than 90%. Access is steadily increasing. Most Internet activity focuses on email and searching in journals and databases, but there is a very wide range of activities. Professional email with colleagues and patients is low, but increasing. The major factors discouraging usage are time, workload and cost, while too much information, liability issues and lack of skills also feature as discouraging factors. Factors encouraging use are unclear, but overall patient satisfaction and belief in improved service delivery, time saving and demand from patients are factors. There is a trend that males use the Internet more than females, young more than old, and specialists more than generalists, but these differences are not across the board, and show variations between studies.Conclusion In spite of the limitations, it is clear that doctors are highly connected to the Internet, and their professional usage is increasing. Factors encouraging and discouraging usage are more complex than simple connectivity. Usage differences between demographic groups do exist, but are equalising. More and consistent research is required in this area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.10.002

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Masters, K.
Affiliations
University of Cape Town (ZA)
Corresponding author
Masters, Ken
ORCID
Masters, Ken
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-01
Volume
77
Issue
1
Pages
4-16
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.10.002
OpenAlex
W2166779870
Cited by
151
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
barriers to internet use, enabling factors, patient satisfaction, medical liability
MeSH terms
Humans, Physicians, South Africa, Internet

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