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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“It appears to be difficult to reach high-quality and reliable information due to the probability of the collection or spread of unnecessary and inaccurate information through social media, resulting in confusion in patient-physician relationship.21”
From Social media and Internet usage of orthopaedic surgeons (2017) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“Previous surveys have particularly concentrated on physicians’ use of specific media channels (eg, email) [1], their information seeking on the Internet, and the impact of media on medical education [2,3].”
Citations
Cites
Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research
Mays, N. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 · Cited by 3,742
Management research: An introduction
(1992) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/0024-6301(92)90354-5 · Cited by 3,036
Use of the Internet and E-mail for Health Care Information: Results From a National Survey
Baker, L., Wagner, T. H., Singer, S., & Bundorf, M. K. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.18.2400 · Cited by 1,129
Boulos, M. N. K., & Wheeler, S. (2007) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x · Cited by 894
Metzger, M. J. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20672 · Cited by 871
Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web
Rieh, S. Y. (2001) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.10017 · Cited by 669
Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web
Rieh, S. Y. (2002) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.10017.abs · Cited by 585
Grand challenges in clinical decision support
Sittig, D. F., Wright, A., Osheroff, J. A., Middleton, B., Teich, J. M., Ash, J. S., Campbell, E., & Bates, D. W. (2008) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2007.09.003 · Cited by 582
Googling for a diagnosis—use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study
Tang, H., & Ng, J. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39003.640567.ae · Cited by 386
How Web 2.0 is changing medicine
Giustini, D. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39062.555405.80 · Cited by 315
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Alch, 2000, The echo-boom generation—a growing force in American society, Futurist, 34, 42
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Moorhead, S. A., Hazlett, D. E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J. K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1933 · Cited by 2,517
Bidmon, S., & Terlutter, R. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4127 · Cited by 389
Reviewing social media use by clinicians: Table 1
von Muhlen, M., & Ohno-Machado, L. (2012) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000990 · Cited by 319
How Health Care Professionals Use Social Media to Create Virtual Communities: An Integrative Review
Rolls, K., Hansen, M. M., Jackson, D. W., & Elliott, D. (2016) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.5312 · Cited by 313
Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web tools
Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2013) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2012-0364 · Cited by 277
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
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 645-655
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- 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
