Cited by 193Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

The role of the Internet in patient–practitioner relationships: findings from a qualitative research study

Open access
Hart, Angie, Henwood, Flis, Wyatt, Sally·2004·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that there has been an increase in the use of the Internet by patients in many Western societies. However, despite the many texts available on health and the Internet, not much is known about how much patients actually use the Internet to look up health information in their daily lives. We know little about what meaning this activity has for their experience of health and illness, and for their relationship with health-care practitioners. OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' and practitioners' use of the Internet and to consider whether use of the Internet is changing relationships between patients and health-care practitioners. METHOD: The study used qualitative interviews and observations of patient-practitioner interaction. Our purposive sample of 47 patients (32 women and 15 men) had all had contact with the health services for information/treatment in relation to hormone replacement therapy (HRT)/menopause and Viagra/erectile dysfunction. The setting for the research was in general practitioners' surgeries, specialist clinics and patients' homes in the United Kingdom. Participants reflected a wide range of socio-economic groups, but most were white and British born, which, given the ethnic make-up of the town in which we conducted the research, was not surprising. In addition to patients, we interviewed 10 health-care practitioners (4 consultant doctors, 3 GPs, 2 specialist nurses, and a psychologist) about their own health information seeking practices (HISPs) and those of their patients. RESULTS: Use of the Internet can increase patients' knowledge about their health conditions, although patients in our study were often too overwhelmed by the information available on the Internet to make an informed decision about their own care. Patients have a great deal of trust in their health-care practitioners. Health-care practitioners need to improve their own skills in Internet use. Hype around Internet use by patients appears to exceed the reality of Internet use. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative study suggests that use of the Internet is contributing to subtle changes in the relationship between health-care practitioners and their patients, rather than effecting the dramatic transformation some people envisage for it.

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.6.3.e36

Cites

35 of 35 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hart, A., Henwood, F., & Wyatt, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Brighton (GB)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Hart, Angie
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2004-09-30
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
e36
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142247456
Cited by
193
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
FWCI
18.53
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 (publishedVersion)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (submittedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
internet use, patient-practitioner relationship, health information seeking, online health information, patient trust, hormone replacement therapy, menopause, sildenafil, erectile dysfunction, patient decision-making, general practitioners
MeSH terms
Sildenafil Citrate, Adult, Aged, Computer Literacy, Female, United Kingdom, Health Services, Humans, Erectile Dysfunction, Information Services, Male, Menopause, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Piperazines, Purines, Sulfones, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Internet, Qualitative Research

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