IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i5_supplp106-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of the Internet and Ratings of Information Sources for Medical Decisions: Results from the DECISIONS Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Mick P. Couper
  • Eleanor Singer
  • Carrie A. Levin
  • Floyd J. Fowler Jr.
  • Angela Fagerlin
  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

Abstract

Background The rise in Internet use for seeking health information raises questions about the role the Internet may play in how patients make medical decisions. Objective To examine Internet use and perceived importance of different sources of information by patients making 9 specific medical decisions covering prescription medication initiation, cancer screening, and elective surgery. Setting National sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing. Design Cross-sectional survey conducted between November 2006 and May 2007. Participants The final sample comprised 2575 English-speaking US adults aged 40 y and older who had either undergone 1 of 9 medical procedures or tests or talked with a health care provider about doing so during the previous 2 y. Measurements Participants indicated if they or other family members used the Internet to seek information related to each of the specific medical decisions and rated how important the health care provider, the Internet (if used), family and friends, and the media (newspapers, magazines, and television) were in providing information to help make the medical decision. Results Use of the Internet for information related to specific decisions among adults 40 y and older was generally low (28%) but varied across decisions, from 17% for breast cancer screening to 48% for hip/knee replacement. Internet use was higher at younger ages, rising from 14% among those aged 70 y and older to 38% for those aged 40 to 49 y. Internet users consistently rated health care providers as the most influential source of information for medical decisions, followed by the Internet, family and friends, and media. Limitations Telephone surveys are limited by coverage and nonresponse. The authors excluded health-related Internet use not associated with the 9 target decisions. Conclusions A minority of patients reported using the Internet to make specific common medical decisions, but use varied widely by type of decision. Perhaps reflecting perceived risk and uncertainty, use was lowest for screening decisions and highest for surgical decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Mick P. Couper & Eleanor Singer & Carrie A. Levin & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Use of the Internet and Ratings of Information Sources for Medical Decisions: Results from the DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 106-114, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5_suppl:p:106-114
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10377661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10377661
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10377661?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Couper, Mick P. & Kapteyn, Arie & Schonlau, Matthias & Winter, Joachim, 2007. "Noncoverage and nonresponse in an Internet survey," Munich Reprints in Economics 20093, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark H. Ryan & Jonathan Yoder & Sharon K. Flores & Jason Soh & Allison A. Vanderbilt, 2016. "Using Health Information Technology to Reach Patients in Underserved Communities: A Pilot Study to Help Close the Gap With Health Disparities," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(6), pages 1-86, June.
    2. Erin Mathieu, 2010. "The Internet and Medical Decision Making: Can It Replace the Role of Health Care Providers?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 14-16, September.
    3. Hershberger, Patricia E. & Gallo, Agatha M. & Kavanaugh, Karen & Olshansky, Ellen & Schwartz, Alan & Tur-Kaspa, Ilan, 2012. "The decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples considering preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Initial findings from a grounded theory study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(10), pages 1536-1543.
    4. Shen, Chan & Tina Shih, Ya-Chen, 2016. "Therapeutic substitutions in the midst of new technology diffusion: The case of treatment for localized prostate cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 110-120.
    5. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Mick P. Couper & Eleanor Singer & Carrie A. Levin & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Sonja Ziniel & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2010. "The DECISIONS Study: A Nationwide Survey of United States Adults Regarding 9 Common Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 20-34, September.
    6. Alistair Anderson, 2018. "Online health information and public knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours regarding antibiotics in the UK: Multiple regression analysis of Wellcome Monitor and Eurobarometer Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, October.
    7. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.
    8. Anna Pilarska & Agnieszka Zimmermann & Agata Zdun-Ryżewska, 2022. "Access to Health Information in the Polish Healthcare System—Survey Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-12, June.
    9. Hakan Aslan & Burcak Vatansever, 2018. "Efficiency of Knowledge Inflow Structures: The Mediation Effect of Task Environment Analysis," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 7(4), pages 30-43, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Crossley, Thomas F. & Fisher, Paul & Low, Hamish, 2021. "The heterogeneous and regressive consequences of COVID-19: Evidence from high quality panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Simon, Lisa & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "Can Online Surveys Represent the Entire Population?," IZA Discussion Papers 11799, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Arthur van Soest & Arie Kapteyn, 2009. "Mode and Context Effects in Measuring Household Assets," Working Papers 200949, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    4. Mohorko Anja & Leeuw Edith de & Hox Joop, 2013. "Internet Coverage and Coverage Bias in Europe: Developments Across Countries and Over Time," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(4), pages 609-622, December.
    5. Richard, James E. & Purnell, Fruen, 2017. "Rethinking Catalogue and Online B2B Buyer Channel Preferences in the Education Supplies Market," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-15.
    6. Hung, Kam & Law, Rob, 2011. "An overview of Internet-based surveys in hospitality and tourism journals," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 717-724.
    7. Stefano Visintin & Kea Tijdens & Stephanie Steinmetz & Pablo de Pedraza, 2015. "Task implementation heterogeneity and wage dispersion," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, December.
    8. Joanne W. Hsu & Brooke H. McFall, 2015. "Mode effects in mixed-mode economic surveys: Insights from a randomized experiment," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-8, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    9. Joachim Winter & Amelie Wuppermann, 2014. "Do They Know What Is At Risk? Health Risk Perception Among The Obese," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 564-585, May.
    10. Haan Marieke & Ongena Yfke P. & Aarts Kees, 2014. "Reaching Hard-to-Survey Populations: Mode Choice and Mode Preference," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 355-379, June.
    11. Brezovec, Erik, 2018. "Higher Education and the Concurrence of the Students on the Future Labour Market," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2018), Split, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Split, Croatia, 6-8 September 2018, pages 149-159, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    12. Murray Rudd, 2011. "An Exploratory Analysis of Societal Preferences for Research-Driven Quality of Life Improvements in Canada," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 101(1), pages 127-153, March.
    13. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Simon, Lisa & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2023. "Can internet surveys represent the entire population? A practitioners’ analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    14. Beth Chaney & Adam Barry & J. Chaney & Michael Stellefson & Monica Webb, 2013. "Using screen video capture software to aide and inform cognitive interviewing," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2529-2537, August.
    15. Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 221-238, August.
    16. Xinyi Wang & F. Atiyya Shaw & Patricia L. Mokhtarian & Kari E. Watkins, 2023. "Response willingness in consecutive travel surveys: an investigation based on the National Household Travel Survey using a sample selection model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 2339-2373, December.
    17. Matthias Schonlau & Arthur van Soest & Arie Kapteyn & Mick Couper, 2009. "Selection Bias in Web Surveys and the Use of Propensity Scores," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 291-318, February.
    18. Milan Scasny & Milan Scasny & Iva Zverinova & Mikolaj Czajkowski, 2015. "Individual preference for the alternative fuel vehicles and their attributes in Poland," EcoMod2015 8575, EcoMod.
    19. repec:aia:aiaswp:wp76 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Sebastian Kocar & Nicholas Biddle, 2023. "The power of online panel paradata to predict unit nonresponse and voluntary attrition in a longitudinal design," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 1055-1078, April.
    21. Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt02n9j6cv, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.

    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:30:y:2010:i:5_suppl:p:106-114. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.