eHealth as a challenge to ‘expert’ power: a focus group study of internet use for health information and management
Open accessAbstract
Summary Objective: To investigate current use of the internet and eHealth amongst adults. Design: Focus groups were conducted to explore participants' attitudes to and reasons for health internet use. Main outcome measures: The focus group data were analysed and interpreted using thematic analysis. Results: Three superordinate themes exploring eHealth behaviours were identified: decline in expert authority, pervasiveness of health information on the internet and empowerment. Results showed participants enjoyed the immediate benefits of eHealth information and felt empowered by increased knowledge, but they would be reluctant to lose face-to-face consultations with their GP. Conclusions: Our findings illustrate changes in patient identity and a decline in expert authority with ramifications for the practitioner–patient relationship and subsequent implications for health management more generally.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The internet allows 24-h access, whereas obtaining an appointment with a HCP can be difficult.
“The internet allows 24-h access, whereas obtaining an appointment with a HCP can be difficult [30, 31, 34].”
The internet was seen to work well as a means for self-diagnosis or to find information to help ease patients' minds while awaiting doctors' appointments.
“The internet was seen to work well as a means for self-diagnosis or to find information to help ease patients’ minds while awaiting doctors’ appointments [30].”
Online self-diagnosis was seen as a way to help patients make the most of the short time in consultations so they know what questions to ask.
“It was also seen as a way to help them to make the most of the short time they have in consultations so they know what questions to ask [30, 38].”
Most patients viewed their research as a complementary information source to be used alongside treatment from their HCP.
“However, most patients viewed their research as a complementary information source to be used alongside treatment from their HCP [30, 36, 47, 49, 50].”
Most studies emphasised that, regardless of the popularity of online self-diagnosis, the majority of respondents valued HCPs' opinions more, understood their explanations of diagnoses better, and had more trust in them.
“Most studies emphasised that, regardless of the popularity of online self-diagnosis, the majority of respondents valued HCP’s opinions more, understood their explanations of diagnoses better, and had more trust in them [30, 50].”
Most people did not feel that online self-diagnosis and health research had an impact on their relationship with HCPs.
“It was also clear that most people did not feel that online self-diagnosis and health research had an impact on their relationship with HCP’s [27, 30, 31, 50, 51].”
A large proportion of people found health information obtained online to be a complementary information source, an adjunct rather than substitute for HCP advice and treatment.
“A large proportion of people found health information obtained online to be a complementary information source, that was an adjunct rather than substitute for HCP advice and treatment [30, 36, 47, 49, 50].”
The internet is not seen as a replacement for visiting a HCP, but as offering a complimentary source of information.
“The internet is not seen as a replacement for visiting a HCP, but as offering a complimentary source of information [30, 50, 51].”
These people found the method of online self-diagnosis could be reassuring while waiting for a healthcare appointment that might be some time away.
“These people found the method of online self-diagnosis could be reassuring while waiting for a healthcare appointment that might be some time away [30].”
People used information from the internet to become better informed about their health, to prepare for their consultation, to enable them to ask better questions and to help them better understand the information given to them by HCPs, thus helping to make consultations more productive for them.
“People used information from the internet to become better informed about their health, to prepare for their consultation, to enable them to ask better questions and to help them better understand the information given to them by HCP’s [30, 38] thus helping to make consultations more productive for them.”
Patients found HCPs to be the most valued source of health information but found the internet to be a useful complementary tool.
“Patients found HCP’s to be the most valued source of health information but found the internet to be a useful complementary tool [30, 36, 47, 49, 50].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 37
- Authors
- Donnelly, L. S., Shaw, R. L., & van den Akker, O. B.
- Affiliations
- Aston University (GB)
- Department of Psychology, School of Health & Social Sciences, Middlesex UniversityLondon EN3 4SA, UK
- ORCID
- Shaw, Rachel L
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-10-01
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 501-506
- ISSN
- 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1095
- PMC
- PMC2587202
- OpenAlex
- W2170222524
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (submittedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Royal Society
- Aston University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- e-health, online health information seeking, health information seeking, expert authority, patient empowerment, practitioner-patient relationship, face-to-face consultation, patient identity, health management
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude to Health, Female, Humans, Information Services, Male, Patient Education as Topic, Physician-Patient Relations, Physician's Role, Patient Satisfaction, Focus Groups, 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
