Lingering questions and doubts: Online information-seeking of support forum members following their medical visits
Abstract
Objective To examine the prevalence and predictors of patients' post-appointment online health information-seeking and the reasons behind their information searches.Methods Survey of 274 Internet support community members who had been seen by a physician within 30 days. The questionnaire included measures of trust in the physician, health worries, changes in amount of worrying following the visit, online health information-seeking, and standard demographic and visit characteristics.Results A majority of respondents (68%) went online in search of information after their visits. In a logistic regression analysis, going online was associated with lower trust (P=.002), greater worrying (P=.049), and becoming more (P=.024) or less worried (P=.05) by the visit. Among those who went online, the most common reasons for doing so were sheer curiosity (71%) and disappointment with some aspect of the physician's behavior (32%).Conclusion Patients in this online forum routinely turned to the Internet after their medical visits, but were especially likely to do so when trust in the physician was low, anxieties were high, and the visit altered (for better or worse) their anxiety levels.Practice implications Since many patients seek online information after their appointments, physicians should suggest credible websites suited to the circumstances of each patient.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
One survey found that 57.5% of participants gave their physicians a perfect trust score but still used the internet after their visits to do further research.
“One survey found that 57.5% of participants gave their physicians a perfect trust score but still used the internet after their visits to do further research [35].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 88
- Authors
- Bell, R. A., Hu, X., Orrange, S. E., & Kravitz, R. L.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bell, Robert A.
- Venue
- Patient Education and Counseling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 525-528
- ISSN
- 0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2068024418
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 11.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- online health information seeking, trust in physicians, health anxiety, patient-physician interaction, online support forums, patient education
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Health Education, Humans, Information Services, Male, Middle Aged, Office Visits, Physician-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Support, Socioeconomic Factors, Prevalence, Logistic Models, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Trust, Young Adult, Information Seeking Behavior
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