Cited by 573Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityCancer survivorship and careSocial Media in Health Education

The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes.

Open access
Eysenbach, G.·2003·CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Abstract

Each day, more than 12.5 million health-related computer searches are conducted on the World Wide Web. Based on a meta-analysis of 24 published surveys, the author estimates that in the developed world, about 39% of persons with cancer are using the Internet, and approximately 2.3 million persons living with cancer worldwide are online. In addition, 15% to 20% of persons with cancer use the Internet "indirectly" through family and friends. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, the available evidence on how persons with cancer are using the Internet and the effect of Internet use on persons with cancer is summarized. The author distinguishes four areas of Internet use: communication (electronic mail), community (virtual support groups), content (health information on the World Wide Web), and e-commerce. A conceptual framework summarizing the factors involved in a possible link between Internet use and cancer outcomes is presented, and future areas for research are highlighted.

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 · 10.3322/canjclin.53.6.356

Cites

102 of 102 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: 5

  1. Jadad AR, Sigouin C, Cocking L, et al. Inter- net use among physicians, nurses, and their pa- tients. JAMA 2001;286:1451-1452.
  2. Ranson S, Morrow GR, Dakhil S, et al. In- ternet use among 1020 cancer patients assessed in community practices: a URCC CCOP Study [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:534.
  3. Yakren S, Shi W, Thaler H, et al. Use of the Internet and other information resources among adult cancer patients and their companions [Ab- stract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:398a.
  4. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Doctor, you've got e-mail [letter-reply]. JAMA 1999;282:730 - 731.
  5. Klemm P, Bunnell D, Cullen M, et al. On- line cancer support groups: a review of the re- search literature. Comput Inform Nurs 2003;21: 136 -142.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eysenbach, G.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Eysenbach, G.
Venue
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-11-01
Volume
53
Issue
6
Pages
356-371
ISSN
0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063761201
Cited by
573
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 37
FWCI
5.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
internet use, cancer patients, oncological outcomes, online health information, online support groups, email, e-commerce, patient communication, health information seeking, conceptual framework
MeSH terms
Commerce, Communication, Humans, Information Services, Neoplasms, Patient Education as Topic, Self-Help Groups, User-Computer Interface, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 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