Cited by 81Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

The doctor as the second opinion and the internet as the first

Gualtieri, Lisa Neal·2009·CHI '09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

People who use the Internet for health information often obtain their first opinion that way, and then, if they go to a doctor, the doctor's advice is relegated to the second opinion. Using the Internet, or Dr. Google, as a first opinion can be problematic due to misinformation, misinterpretation of valid information, and the fears that can arise due to lack of medical knowledge, inexperience, and limited perspectives. When patients do visit their doctor for a second opinion, some do not disclose the fact they already received their first opinion and often their doctors do not ask. The result is that patients may suffer needlessly if their fears, concerns, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations are not addressed by the healthcare providers with the expertise and skills to assist them. A pernicious disconnect exists between many patients who use the Internet for health information and the medical professionals who care for them. The medical profession can alleviate this disconnect by taking the lead in establishing guidelines for systematically talking to patients about, and guiding, their Internet research. Human-computer interaction professionals can collaborate with the medical community in ensuring credible health Web sites become the gold standard that patients use to achieve better health.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1520340.1520352

Cites

10 of 10 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

Authors
Gualtieri, L. N.
Affiliations
Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Gualtieri, Lisa Neal
Venue
CHI '09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2009-04-04
Pages
2489-2498
OpenAlex
W2139679019
Cited by
81
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
15.10
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Tufts University School of Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
online health information, second opinion, patient-physician communication, health misinformation, patient disclosure, health websites, patient guidance, human-computer interaction

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