CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

The role of internet resources in health decision-making: a qualitative study

Open access
Bussey, Lauren Georgia, Sillence, Elizabeth·2019·DIGITAL HEALTH
DOI 10.1177/2055207619888073PMC PMC6843735
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: Internet resources remain important for health information and advice but their specific role in decision-making is understudied, often assumed and remains unclear. In this article, we examine the different ways in which internet resources play a role in health decision-making within the context of distributed decision-making. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 people in the United Kingdom who reported using the internet in relation to decision-making, and representing a range of long- and short-term health conditions. The interviews focused on decision-making activities across different settings and in relation to different stakeholders to understand how internet resources play a role in these activities. We carried out a thematic analysis of the interviews. Results: We identified three main ways in which internet resources played a role in health decision-making. A supportive role (as a decision crutch), a stimulating role (as a decision initiator), and an interactional role (impacting on the doctor–patient relationship). These three roles spanned different resources and illustrated how the decision-making process can be impacted by the encounters people have with technology – specifically internet based health resources – in different ways and at different time points. Conclusions: Examining health decisions with respect to internet resources highlights the complex and distributed nature of decision-making alongside the complexity of online health information sourcing. We discuss the role of internet resources in relation to the increasing importance of online personal experiences and their relevance within shared decision-making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2055207619888073

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Healthcare professionals have mixed views in relation to patients resorting to the internet and mobile apps, with reservations about sources and accuracy, yet highlighting that active patient engagement can support a positive patient-physician interaction.

    “Healthcare professionals have mixed views in relation to patients resorting to the internet [114] and mobile apps [115], with reservations about the sources and accuracy of information, yet highlighting that active patient engagement can support a positive patient-physician interaction [116,117].”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [117]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. [1]Entwistle VA France EF Wyke S, et al How information about other people's personal experiences can help with healthcare decision-making: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns 2011; 85: 291– 298. 21652162
  2. [2]Yan L Yan X Tan Y, et al Shared minds: how patients use collaborative information sharing via social media platforms. Prod Oper Manag 2019; 28: 9– 26.
  3. [3]Witteman HO Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The defining characteristics of Web 2.0 and their potential influence in the online vaccination debate. Vaccine 2012; 30: 3734– 3740. 22178516
  4. [4]Caiata-Zufferey M Abraham A Sommerhalder K, et al Online health information seeking in the context of the medical consultation in Switzerland. Qual Health Res 2010; 20: 1050– 1061. 20442347
  5. [5]O'Connor AM Légaré F Stacey D. Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. BMJ 2003; 327: 736– 740. 14512487 PMC200814
  6. [6]Iverson SA Howard KB Penney BK. Impact of internet use on health-related behaviors and the patient-physician relationship: a survey-based study and review. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2008; 108: 699– 711. 19075034
  7. [8]Franklin M Lewis S Willis K, et al Controlled, constrained, or flexible? How self-management goals are shaped by patient–provider interactions. Qual Health Res 2019; 29: 557– 567. 29871583
  8. [9]Elwyn G Durand MA Song J, et al A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ 2017; 6: 359. PMC5683042 29109079
  9. [10]Rapley T. Distributed decision making: the anatomy of decisions‐in‐action. Sociol Health Illn 2008; 30: 429– 444. 18194358
  10. [14]Reisner SL Randazzo RK White Hughto JM, et al Sensitive health topics with underserved patient populations: methodological considerations for online focus group discussions. Qual Health Res 2018; 28: 1658– 1673. 29298574 PMC5758419
  11. [15]Best P Gil-Rodriguez E Manktelow R, et al Seeking help from everyone and no-one: conceptualizing the online help-seeking process among adolescent males. Qual Health Res 2016; 26: 1067– 1077. 27179020
  12. [16]France EF Wyke S Ziebland S, et al How personal experiences feature in women’s accounts of use of information for decisions about antenatal diagnostic testing for foetal abnormality. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72: 755– 762. 21257248
  13. [17]Ziebland S Herxheimer A. How patients’ experiences contribute to decision making: illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness). J Nurs Manag 2008; 16: 433– 439. 18405260
  14. [19]Lagan BM Sinclair M George Kernohan W. Internet use in pregnancy informs women’s decision making: a web‐based survey. Birth 2010; 37: 106– 115. 20557533
  15. [20]Van Uden-Kraan CF Drossaert CH Taal E, et al Participation in online patient support groups endorses patients’ empowerment. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 74: 61– 69. 18778909
  16. [22]Katz JN Lyons N Wolff LS, et al Medical decision-making among Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites with chronic back and knee pain: a qualitative study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord 2011; 12: 78. PMC3098215 21510880
  17. [23]Sillence E, Bussey L. Changing hospitals, choosing chemotherapy and deciding you've made the right choice: Understanding the role of online support groups in different health decision-making activities. Patient Educ Couns 2017; 100: 994--999. 27993436
  18. [24]Shaffer VA Hulsey L Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The effects of process-focused versus experience-focused narratives in a breast cancer treatment decision task. Patient Educ Couns 2013; 93: 255– 264. 23962673
  19. [25]Blythe JM Sillence E Briggs P. The role of trust in eHealth websites: The enduring power of impartiality. In: Frontiers in Public Health. Conference Abstract: 3rd UCL Centre for Behaviour Change Digital Health Conference, University College London, 22–23 February 2017.
  20. [26]Hu Y Shyam Sundar S. Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Commun Res 2010; 37: 105– 132.
  21. [27]Montori VM Gafni A Charles C. A shared treatment decision‐making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes. Health Expect 2006; 9: 25– 36. 16436159 PMC5060323
  22. [28]Entwistle VA Watt IS. Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: the case for a broader conceptual framework. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 63: 268– 278. 16875797
  23. [29]Zaidi R Pfeil M Macgregor AJ, et al How do patients with end-stage ankle arthritis decide between two surgical treatments? A qualitative study. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002782. PMC3717458 23864209
  24. [30]Bartlett YK Coulson NS. An investigation into the empowerment effects of using online support groups and how this affects health professional/patient communication. Patient Educ Couns 2011; 83: 113– 119. 20599338
  25. [31]Clayman ML Gulbrandsen P Morris MA. A patient in the clinic; a person in the world. Why shared decision making needs to center on the person rather than the medical encounter. Patient Educ Couns 2017; 100: 600– 604. 27780646
  26. [32]Van Uden-Kraan CF Drossaert CH Taal E, et al Empowering processes and outcomes of participation in online support groups for patients with breast cancer, arthritis, or fibromyalgia. Qual Health Res 2008; 18: 405– 417. 18235163
  27. [33]Bussey L, Sillence E. (How) do People Negotiate Online Information into their Decision Making with Healthcare Professionals?. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Digital Health. ACM, 2017, July, pp. 1--5.
  28. [34]Frosch DL May SG Rendle KA, et al Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled ‘difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Affairs 2012; 31: 1030– 1038. 22566443
  29. [35]Silver MP. Patient perspectives on online health information and communication with doctors: a qualitative study of patients 50 years old and over. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17: e19. 25586865 PMC4319073
  30. [37]Joseph-Williams N Elwyn G Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 94: 291– 309. 24305642
  31. [38]Sharf BF Vanderford ML. Illness narratives and the social construction of health In: Thompson TL Dorsey AM Miller KI Parrott R (eds) Handbook of Health Communication. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, pp. 9– 34.
  32. [39]Shaw Y Metes ID Michaud K, et al Arthritis Patients’ Motivations for Accepting or Resisting Disease‐Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment Regimens. Arthritis Care Res 2018; 70: 533– 541. PMC5712284 28575542
  33. [40]Beryl LL Rendle KA Halley MC, et al Mapping the decision-making process for adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer: the role of decisional resolve. Med Decis Making 2017; 37: 79– 90. 27053528
  34. [41]Dew K Signal L Stairmand J, et al Cancer care decision-making and treatment consent: An observational study of patients’ and clinicians’ rights. J Sociol 2018; 55: 161– 178.
  35. [42]Lee RP Thompson B Whybrow P, et al Talking about looking: Three approaches to interviewing carers of people with rheumatoid arthritis about information seeking. Qual Health Res 2016; 26: 1229– 1239. 26290541 PMC4904351
  36. [44]Tennant B Stellefson M Dodd V, et al eHealth literacy and Web 2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17: e70. 25783036 PMC4381816
  37. [45]MacLean A Hunt K Smith S, et al Does gender matter? An analysis of men's and women's accounts of responding to symptoms of lung cancer. Soc Sci Med 2017; 1: 134– 142. PMC5630200 28917622
  38. [46]Wang Y Hunt K Nazareth I, et al Do men consult less than women? An analysis of routinely collected UK general practice data. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e003320. PMC3753483 23959757
  39. [47]Mo PK Malik SH Coulson NS. Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: a systematic literature review of online health-related support groups. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 75: 16– 24. 19233586

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bussey, L. G., & Sillence, E.
Affiliations
  • Teesside University (GB)
  • Northumbria University (GB)
Corresponding author
Sillence, Elizabeth
ORCID
Sillence, Elizabeth
Venue
DIGITAL HEALTH
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-01
Volume
5
Pages
2055207619888073-2055207619888073
ISSN
2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/2055207619888073
PMC
PMC6843735
OpenAlex
W2982377517
Cited by
70
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TeesRep (Teesside University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
internet health resources, health decision-making, decentralized decision-making, online health information, shared decision-making, physician-patient relationship, decision support, chronic disease

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