Cited by 190Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityElectronic Health Records SystemsSocial Media in Health Education

Survey of doctors’ experience of patients using the Internet

Open access
Potts, Henry W. W, Wyatt, Jeremy C·2002·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There have been many studies showing the variable quality of Internet health information and it has often been assumed that patients will blindly follow this and frequently come to harm. There have also been reports of problems for doctors and health services following patient Internet use, but their frequency has not been quantified. However, there have been no large, rigorous surveys of the perceptions of Internet-aware doctors about the actual benefits and harms to their patients of using the Internet. OBJECTIVE: To describe Internet-literate doctors' experiences of their patients' use of the Internet and resulting benefits and problems. METHODS: Online survey to a group of 800 Web-using doctors (members of a UK medical Internet service provider, Medix) in September and October 2001. RESULTS: Responses were received from 748 (94%) doctors, including 375 general practitioners (50%). Respondents estimated that 1%-2% of their patients used the Internet for health information in the past month with no regional variation. Over two thirds of the doctors considered Internet health information to be usually (20%) or sometimes (48%) reliable; this was higher in those recently qualified. Twice as many reported patients experiencing benefits (85%; 95% confidence interval, 80%-90%) than problems (44%; 95% confidence interval, 37%-50%) from the Internet. Patients gaining actual physical benefits from Internet use were reported by 40% of respondents, while 8% reported physical harm. Patients' overall experiences with the Internet were judged excellent 1%, good 29%, neutral 62%, poor 9%, or bad <1%. Turning to the impact of patient Internet use on the doctors themselves, 13% reported no problems, 38% 1 problem, and 49% 2 or more problems. Conversely, 20% reported no benefits for themselves, 49% 1 benefit, and 21% 2 or more benefits. CONCLUSIONS: These doctors reported patient benefits from Internet use much more often than harms, but there were more problems than benefits for the doctors themselves. Reported estimates of patient Internet usage rates were low. Overall, this survey suggests that patients are deriving considerable benefits from using the Internet and that some of the claimed risks seem to have been exaggerated.

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.4.1.e5

Cites

22 of 22 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?

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: 2

  1. [1]Eysenbach G Sa E R Diepgen T L Cybermedicine. Interview by Clare Thompson BMJ 1999 11 13 319 7220 1294 http://bmj.com/cgi/reprint/319/7220/1294.pdf 20025693 10559047 PMC1129072
  2. [10]American Medical Association AMA testimony on the risks and benefits of on-line Pharmacies 1999 2001 Oct 5 http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/4023-4136.html

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Potts, H. W. W., & Wyatt, J. C.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Potts, Henry W. W
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2002-03-31
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
e5
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2153199695
Cited by
190
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 13
FWCI
27.07
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)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
online health information, physician perceptions, general practitioners
MeSH terms
Attitude to Computers, Humans, Information Services, Patient Education as Topic, Physicians, Quality Control, Surveys and Questionnaires, Health Care Surveys, 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