Cited by 85Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityHealth Sciences Research and EducationInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Utilization and Perceived Problems of Online Medical Resources and Search Tools Among Different Groups of European Physicians

Open access
Kritz, Marlene, Gschwandtner, Manfred, Stefanov, Veronika, Hanbury, Allan, Samwald, Matthias·2013·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a large body of research suggesting that medical professionals have unmet information needs during their daily routines. OBJECTIVE: To investigate which online resources and tools different groups of European physicians use to gather medical information and to identify barriers that prevent the successful retrieval of medical information from the Internet. METHODS: A detailed Web-based questionnaire was sent out to approximately 15,000 physicians across Europe and disseminated through partner websites. 500 European physicians of different levels of academic qualification and medical specialization were included in the analysis. Self-reported frequency of use of different types of online resources, perceived importance of search tools, and perceived search barriers were measured. Comparisons were made across different levels of qualification (qualified physicians vs physicians in training, medical specialists without professorships vs medical professors) and specialization (general practitioners vs specialists). RESULTS: Most participants were Internet-savvy, came from Austria (43%, 190/440) and Switzerland (31%, 137/440), were above 50 years old (56%, 239/430), stated high levels of medical work experience, had regular patient contact and were employed in nonacademic health care settings (41%, 177/432). All groups reported frequent use of general search engines and cited "restricted accessibility to good quality information" as a dominant barrier to finding medical information on the Internet. Physicians in training reported the most frequent use of Wikipedia (56%, 31/55). Specialists were more likely than general practitioners to use medical research databases (68%, 185/274 vs 27%, 24/88; χ²₂=44.905, P<.001). General practitioners were more likely than specialists to report "lack of time" as a barrier towards finding information on the Internet (59%, 50/85 vs 43%, 111/260; χ²₁=7.231, P=.007) and to restrict their search by language (48%, 43/89 vs 35%, 97/278; χ²₁=5.148, P=.023). They frequently consult general health websites (36%, 31/87 vs 19%, 51/269; χ²₂=12.813, P=.002) and online physician network communities (17%, 15/86, χ²₂=9.841 vs 6%, 17/270, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The reported inaccessibility of relevant, trustworthy resources on the Internet and frequent reliance on general search engines and social media among physicians require further attention. Possible solutions may be increased governmental support for the development and popularization of user-tailored medical search tools and open access to high-quality content for physicians. The potential role of collaborative tools in providing the psychological support and affirmation normally given by medical colleagues needs further consideration. Tools that speed up quality evaluation and aid selection of relevant search results need to be identified. In order to develop an adequate search tool, a differentiated approach considering the differing needs of physician subgroups may be beneficial.

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 · 10.2196/jmir.2436

Cites

17 of 17 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?

  • Concerns about online searching, privacy, and professionalism have been suggested as barriers to doctors' use of social media.

    “While concerns about online searching [22,23], privacy [24], and professionalism [25] have been suggested as barriers to the use of social media by doctors, the slow adoption of social media also represents a possible lost opportunity for the medical profession at large to engage with patients and the general community.”

    From How Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey (2014) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Results section, “What Are the Barriers to Finding Information” (page unavailable), identifies lack of time, inaccessible information, and questionable trustworthiness as barriers to physicians’ online medical-information searches. It also notes their use of social media to obtain information, but does not establish that these search concerns deter doctors from using social media. Privacy and professionalism are attached to other citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kritz, M., Gschwandtner, M., Stefanov, V., Hanbury, A., & Samwald, M.
Affiliations
TU Wien (AT)
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2013-06-26
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
e122
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2067700035
Cited by
84
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 3
FWCI
16.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • European Commission (2007–2013, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007, 257528)
  • Austrian Science Fund
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
physician information seeking, online medical resources, search engines, health information quality, general practitioners, specialist physicians, physicians in training, academic physicians, language barriers, time constraints, online health communities, European physicians, internet use by physicians
MeSH terms
Computer Literacy, Europe, Medical Informatics, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Surveys and Questionnaires, Internet, Search Engine

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