CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 217Health Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media in Health EducationHealth Sciences Research and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Junior physician's use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: A qualitative study

Hughes, Benjamin, Joshi, Indra, Lemonde, Hugh, Wareham, Jonathan·2009·International Journal of Medical Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.04.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Web 2.0 internet tools and methods have attracted considerable attention as a means to improve health care delivery. Despite evidence demonstrating their use by medical professionals, there is no detailed research describing how Web 2.0 influences physicians' daily clinical practice. Hence this study examines Web 2.0 use by 35 junior physicians in clinical settings to further understand their impact on medical practice.Method Diaries and interviews encompassing 177 days of internet use or 444 search incidents, analyzed via thematic analysis.Results Results indicate that 53% of internet visits employed user-generated or Web 2.0 content, with Google and Wikipedia used by 80% and 70% of physicians, respectively. Despite awareness of information credibility risks with Web 2.0 content, it has a role in information seeking for both clinical decisions and medical education. This is enabled by the ability to cross check information and the diverse needs for background and non-verified information.Conclusion Web 2.0 use represents a profound departure from previous learning and decision processes which were normally controlled by senior medical staff or medical schools. There is widespread concern with the risk of poor quality information with Web 2.0 use, and the manner in which physicians are using it suggest effective use derives from the mitigating actions by the individual physician. Three alternative policy options are identified to manage this risk and improve efficiency in Web 2.0's use.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.04.008

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Alch, 2000, The echo-boom generation—a growing force in American society, Futurist, 34, 42

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–216 of 216

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hughes, B., Joshi, I., Lemonde, H., & Wareham, J.
Affiliations
  • Esade (ES)
  • West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • National Health Service (GB)
Corresponding author
Hughes, Benjamin
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
78
Issue
10
Pages
645-655
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.04.008
OpenAlex
W2097592358
Cited by
217
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 14
FWCI
25.35
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 › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
Web 2.0, junior physicians, information seeking, medical education, clinical decision-making, user-generated content, information credibility, Wikipedia, Google
MeSH terms
Computer-Assisted Instruction, Education, Medical, Continuing, Educational Measurement, England, Medical Staff, Hospital, Teaching, 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