‘I need her to be a doctor’: patients’ experiences of presenting health information from the internet in GP consultations
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly using the internet for health-related information and may bring this to a GP consultation. There is scant information about why patients do this and what they expect from their GP. AIM: The aim was to explore patients' motivation in presenting information, their perception of the GP's response and what they wanted from their doctor. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study based in North London involving patients with experience of bringing health information from the internet to their GP. METHOD: Semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews using a critical incident technique, recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to thematic analysis by a multidisciplinary team of researchers. RESULTS: Twenty-six interviews were completed. Participants reported using the internet to become better informed about their health and hence make best use of the limited time available with the GP and to enable the GP to take their problem more seriously. Patients expected their GP to acknowledge the information; discuss, explain, or contextualise it; and offer a professional opinion. Patients tended to prioritise the GP opinion over the internet information. However, if the GP appeared disinterested, dismissive or patronising patients reported damage to the doctor-patient relationship, occasionally to the extent of seeking a second opinion or changing their doctor. CONCLUSION: This is the first in-depth qualitative study to explore why patients present internet information to their GP within the consultation and what they want when they do this. This information should help GPs respond appropriately in such circumstances.
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?
Several patients did not want to tread on the HCP's toes; they perceived they would be challenging the professional and did not want to question them or make them feel offended or intimidated by attempts to discuss online health information, thus interrupting the diagnostic process.
“Several patients did not want to tread on the HCP’s toes; such patients perceived they would be challenging the professional and did not want to question them or make them feel offended or intimidated by attempts to discuss online health information, thus interrupting the diagnostic process [27, 32, 47].”
Seeking health information online allowed patients to communicate and interact better based on their increased background knowledge of the health conditions involved.
“It also allowed them to communicate and interact better based on their increased background knowledge of the health conditions involved [27, 45].”
Such patients were concerned about HCPs' reactions to their health research online and felt that they might not be listened to or that professionals might become dismissive or uninterested.
“such patients were concerned about HCP’s reactions to their health research online and felt that they might not be listened to or that the professionals might become dismissive or uninterested [27, 32, 36, 39].”
Other reasons for patients not discussing online health information research included feeling embarrassed and not wanting to be seen negatively.
“Other reasons for patients not discussing online health information research included feeling embarrassed and not wanting to be seen negatively [27, 32, 39]”
Enabling better communication with HCPs was one of several reasons why patients used the internet to explore health information.
“Many studies explained that enabling better communication with HCP’s was one of several reasons why patients used the internet to explore health information [27, 38, 40, 45].”
Patients felt more trusting towards their GPs when they were honest about their levels of knowledge, acknowledging that generalists may not know some of the highly specific information provided online.
“Patients felt more trusting towards their GP’s when they were honest about their levels of knowledge, acknowledging that generalists may not know some of the highly specific information provided online [27, 32].”
Some patients felt that sharing health information they found online with their HCPs could show that they had invested time and energy into the consultation; these respondents hoped this would promote them and their problems being taken more seriously.
“In contrast to these perceptions of negative reactions, some patients felt that sharing health information they found online with their HCP’s could show that they had invested time and energy into the consultation; these respondents hoped this would promote them and their problems being taken more seriously [27, 45].”
Patients felt more trust in HCPs and hoped for discussion regarding internet health information while seeking doctors' opinions.
“Patients felt more trust in HCP’s and hoped for discussion regarding internet health information while seeking doctors’ opinions [27].”
Where the HCP's response to health information seeking is negative and disrespectful, this can seriously impact the patient-HCP relationship, and in some cases, this can lead to a patient changing their doctor or practice.
“However, where the HCP’s response to health information seeking is negative and disrespectful, this can seriously impact the patient-HCP relationship, and in some cases, this can lead to a patient changing their doctor or practice [27].”
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].”
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
The critical incident technique.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0061470 · Cited by 8,191 · see citing works
Rogelberg, S. G. (2007) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412952651.n55 · Cited by 5,309 · see citing works
Patient Self-management of Chronic Disease in Primary Care
Bodenheimer, T. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.19.2469 · Cited by 3,598 · see citing works
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
Murphy, Dingwall, Greatbatch, Parker, & Watson (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2160 · Cited by 1,107 · see citing works
McMullan, M. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.006 · Cited by 1,106 · see citing works
Using the Internet for Health-Related Activities: Findings From a National Probability Sample
Atkinson, N. L., Saperstein, S. L., & Pleis, J. R. (2009) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1035 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Doctor in the house: the Internet as a source of lay health knowledge and the challenge to expertise
Hardey, M. (1999) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00185 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
Untangling the Web—The impact of Internet use on health care and the physician–patient relationship
Wald, H. S., Dube, C. E., & Anthony, D. C. (2007) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.016 · Cited by 485 · see citing works
Murray, E., Lo, B., Pollack, L. M., Donelan, K., Catania, J., Lee, K. C. L., Zapert, K., & Turner, R. (2003) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.5.3.e17 · Cited by 462 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Impact of Health Information on the Internet on the Physician-Patient Relationship
Murray, E., Lo, B., Pollack, L. M., Donelan, K., Catania, J., White, M. S., Zapert, K., & Turner, R. (2003) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.163.14.1727 · Cited by 459 · see citing works
Self-citationThe patient–doctor relationship: a synthesis of the qualitative literature on patients' perspectives
Ridd, M. J., Shaw, A. R. G., Lewis, G., & Salisbury, C. (2009) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp09x420248 · Cited by 379 · see citing works
The Impact of CyberHealthcare on the Physician–Patient Relationship
Anderson, J. G., Rainey, M. R., & Eysenbach, G. (2003) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1023/a:1021061229743 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
The quality of health information on the internet
Purcell, G. P. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7337.557 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
The Role of Patient Satisfaction in Online Health Information Seeking
Tustin, N. (2010) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730903465491 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Critical incident technique: a user’s guide for nurse researchers
Schluter, J., Seaton, P., & Chaboyer, W. P. (2007) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04490.x · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Family Medicine Patients' Use of the Internet for Health Information: A MetroNet Study
Schwartz, K., Roe, T., Northrup, J., Meza, J. P., Seifeldin, R., & Neale, A. V. (2006) · The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine · doi:10.3122/jabfm.19.1.39 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Stevenson, F. A., Kerr, C., Murray, E., & Nazareth, I. (2007) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/1471-2296-8-47 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Self-citationSommerhalder, K., Abraham, A., Zufferey, M. C., Barth, J., & Abel, T. (2009) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.028 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Next Generation Users: The Internet in Britain
Dutton, W. H., & Blank, G. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1960655 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Dedding, C. W. M., van Doorn, R. K., Winkler, L. M., & Reis, R. (2010) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.10.017 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Online Health Information Seeking in the Context of the Medical Consultation in Switzerland
Caiata-Zufferey, M., Abraham, A., Sommerhalder, K., & Schulz, P. J. (2010) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732310368404 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Informed Patients and the Internet
Kivits, J. (2006) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105306061186 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Bylund, C. L., Gueguen, J. A., Sabee, C. M., Imes, R. S., Li, Y., & Sanford, A. A. (2007) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.009 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Ahluwalia, S., Murray, E., Stevenson, F., Kerr, C., & Burns, J. (2010) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp10x483120 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Self-citationWhy Patients Go Online: Multiple Sclerosis, the Internet, and Physician-Patient Communication
Hay, M. C., Strathmann, C., Lieber, E., Wick, K., & Giesser, B. (2008) · The Neurologist · doi:10.1097/nrl.0b013e31817709bb · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Kim, J., & Kim, S. (2009) · Informatics for Health and Social Care · doi:10.1080/17538150903102422 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Imes, R. S., Bylund, C. L., Sabee, C. M., Routsong, T. R., & Sanford, A. A. (2008) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410230802460580 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Doctor–Patient Communication About Cancer-Related Internet Information
Bylund, C. L., Gueguen, J. A., D’Agostino, T. A., Li, Y., & Sonet, E. M. (2010) · Journal of Psychosocial Oncology · doi:10.1080/07347330903570495 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Virtual Medical Care: How Are Our Patients Using Online Health Information?
Liszka, H. A., Steyer, T. E., & Hueston, W. J. (2006) · Journal of Community Health · doi:10.1007/s10900-006-9019-3 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
van Uden-Kraan, C. F., Drossaert, C. H. C., Taal, E., Smit, W. M., Seydel, E. R., & van de Laar, M. A. F. J. (2010) · Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.1007/s10067-010-1435-1 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Lowrey, W., & Anderson, W. B. (2006) · Health Communication · doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1902_4 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Health and the Internet--changing boundaries in primary care
Malone, M. (2004) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh215 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Donnelly, L. S., Shaw, R. L., & van den Akker, O. B. (2008) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.080156 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Giveon, S. M., Yaphe, J., Hekselman, I., Mahamid, S., & Hermoni, D. (2009) · PubMed · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Russ, H., Giveon, S. M., Granek-Catarivas, M., & Yaphe, J. (2011) · PubMed · Cited by 37 · see citing works
The Internet: Tomorrowʼs Portal to Non-Traditional Health Care Services
Tyson, T. R. (2000) · Journal of Ambulatory Care Management · doi:10.1097/00004479-200004000-00002 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Townsend, A., Leese, J., Adam, P., McDonald, M., Li, L. C., Kerr, S., & Backman, C. L. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3792 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Farnood, A., Johnston, B., & Mair, F. S. (2020) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-020-01243-6 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Peeters, J. M., Krijgsman, J. W., Brabers, A. E., Jong, J. D. D., & Friele, R. D. (2016) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/medinform.4515 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
General Practitioners’ Perspective on eHealth and Lifestyle Change: Qualitative Interview Study
Brandt, C. J., Søgaard, G. I., Clemensen, J., Sndergaard, J., & Nielsen, J. B. (2018) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.8988 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Pushparajah, D. S., Manning, E., Michels, E., & Arnaudeau-Bégard, C. (2018) · Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science · doi:10.1177/2168479017738723 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bowes, P., Stevenson, F., Ahluwalia, S., & Murray, E.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bowes, Parvathy
- Venue
- British Journal of General Practice
- Published
- 2012-11
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 604
- Pages
- e732-e738
- ISSN
- 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-5242
- PMC
- PMC3481513
- OpenAlex
- W2151097388
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 10.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- online health information, general practitioner visits, physician-patient relationship, patient motivation, patient expectations, second opinion
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, Humans, London, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Physician-Patient Relations, Physician's Role, Referral and Consultation, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Qualitative Research, General Practice
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
