Attitudes of oncology health professionals to information from the Internet and other media

Abstract

Objective: To investigate attitudes of Australian health professionals working in oncology to health‐related information in the media and on the Internet and to patients who search for this information. Design: Questionnaire‐based survey. Setting and participants: Questionnaires were mailed in January 2003 to all 333 health professionals belonging to the Victorian Cooperative Oncology Group. Main outcome measures: 27 items about attitudes to information in the media and the Internet, patient information‐seeking and its effects on the doctor–patient relationship. Results: 226 surveys (68%) were returned and assessable. Most respondents took notice of medical information reported on television/radio, in newspapers (80% each) and on the Internet (56%), mainly to be informed when patients ask questions (82%) and to check its accuracy (60%). Most were concerned about this accuracy (64% believed it accurate only sometimes, and 23% rarely), and 91% believed information from the Internet had the potential to cause harm to patients. Nevertheless, they generally supported patients’ information‐searching, believing it allowed them to be better informed (58%), and did not affect their ability to cope with their illness (49%), or their trust in, and relationship with, their doctor (69% and 67%, respectively). Conclusions: Oncology health professionals are aware of patients’ use of the Internet and other media to obtain medical information. To ensure oncology patients find reliable and relevant information and to minimise the risk of harm, the health professionals treating them should provide guidance in finding information sources, and assistance in interpreting the information obtained.

Internet chemotherapy information: impact on patients and health professionals

“…Although earlier studies have described HPs' concerns that the internet can be inaccurate, distressing or overrated by patients, it was encouraging that most HPs in this study believed that the internet has the potential to increase patients' understanding of the disease and its treatment (Biermann et al , 1999; Chen and Siu, 2001; Helft et al , 2003; Newnham et al , 2005). Although two thirds had a generally supportive attitude, the majority considered that the internet could be detrimental and cause harm to more vulnerable patients.…”

“…The questionnaires were designed based on the previous studies in North America, Canada and Australia, which had looked at general internet cancer related information (Chen and Siu, 2001; Basch et al , 2004; Helft et al , 2005; Newnham et al , 2005, 2006). Modifications were made with additional questions added to meet the aims of this study.…”

“…Although much work has been based on internet and cancer in general (Biermann et al , 1999; Chen and Siu, 2001; Eysenbach, 2003; Helft et al , 2003; Helft et al , 2005; Newnham et al , 2005; Newnham et al , 2006; van de Poll-Franse and van Eenbergen, 2008), there have been no studies examining the experience by patients on chemotherapy and by their respective HPs with internet chemotherapy information (ICI). Consequently, the effect of ICI on patient care and outcomes remains largely unknown on this group of patients.…”

Effects Of Internet-Based Tailored Advice on the Use of Cholesterol-Lowering Interventions: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…While doctors frequently use computerized systems and the Internet to seek information, they may be less likely to act upon material they receive indirectly from the Internet via their patients [29]. That said, the credibility of the information provided by the website did not appear to be a major issue, with the majority of participants that gave feedback about visiting their doctor indicating that both they and their physicians viewed the website outputs as useful and trustworthy.…”

Enhancing provision of written medicine information in Australia: pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer perceptions of the barriers and facilitators

“…There were no published data on the proportion of GPs or other prescribers providing CMI. Informed by response rates from other studies with medical practitioners (range: 47-68% [23,24]), a conservative 30% response rate was assumed and the GP sample size of 1100 subjects was selected to be consistent with the pharmacist sample.…”