Cited by 98Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Why Patients Go Online: Multiple Sclerosis, the Internet, and Physician-Patient Communication

Hay, M Cameron, Strathmann, Cynthia, Lieber, Eli, Wick, Kimberly, Giesser, Barbara·2008·The Neurologist

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The online information seeking of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, their reasons for doing so, and its importance for physician-patient communication have not been described. METHODS: Patients (n = 61) presenting for the first time at an MS clinic from December 2003 to July 2005 were interviewed pre- and postappointment and administered standard measures of pain and health quality of life. Consultations were audio recorded. Quantitative data were analyzed in light of qualitative data. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of patients reported gathering medical information online before their first appointment; 36% discussed this information with their physician. Qualitative reasons for Internet information seeking and for not communicating it show some signs of wariness of health care potentially leading to nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: Most MS patients are informed by online information, but are unlikely to discuss that research with physicians for reasons that may have implications for patient adherence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/nrl.0b013e31817709bb

Cites

38 of 38 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

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hay, M. C., Strathmann, C., Lieber, E., Wick, K., & Giesser, B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Boston College (US)
Corresponding author
Hay, M Cameron
Venue
The Neurologist
Published
2008-11
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
374-381
ISSN
1074-7931 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073404528
Cited by
98
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
FWCI
12.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Neurologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles
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
multiple sclerosis, online information seeking, internet use, physician-patient communication, patient adherence, health information, quality of life, pain
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Informatics, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Retrospective Studies, 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