Author
Listed:
- Neeraja B. Peterson
(Center for Health Services Research, Division of General Medicine and Public Health, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, neeraja .peterson@vanderbilt.edu)
- Kathleen A. Dwyer
(College of Nursing, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
- Shelagh A. Mulvaney
(School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee)
Abstract
Objective . To determine if patients from a community health clinic have access to computers and/or the Internet and if they believe a computer is useful in their medical care. Methods . A convenience sample of 100 subjects, aged 50 years and older, from a community health clinic in Nashville, Tennessee, completed a structured interview and a health literacy assessment. Results . Of the 100 participants, 40 did not have any computer access, 27 had computer but not Internet access, and 33 had Internet access. Participants with computer access (with or without Internet) had higher incomes, higher educational status, and higher literacy status than those without computer access. Of participants reporting current computer use ( n = 54 ), 33% reported never using their computer to look up health and medical information. Of those who ``never'' used their computer for this activity, 54% reported they did not have Internet connectivity, whereas 31% reported they did not know how to use the Internet. Although this group of individuals reported that they were comfortable using a computer (77%), they reported being uncomfortable with accessing the Internet (53%). Conclusions . Not only does access to computers and the Internet need to be improved before widespread use by patients, but computer users will need to be instructed on how to navigate the Internet.
Suggested Citation
Neeraja B. Peterson & Kathleen A. Dwyer & Shelagh A. Mulvaney, 2009.
"Computer and Internet Use in a Community Health Clinic Population,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 202-206, March.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:202-206
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08323621
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:202-206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.