Trust and Sources of Health Information: The Impact of the Internet and Its Implications for Health Care Providers: Findings From the First Health Information National Trends Survey | Oncology | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.236.187.155. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Neuhauser  LKreps  GL Rethinking communication in the E-health era.  J Health Psychol 2003;87- 23Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Rice  RE The Internet and health communication: a framework of experiences. Rice  REKatz  JEeds. The Internet and Health Communication Experiences and Expectations. Thousand Oaks, Calif Sage Publications2001;5- 46Google Scholar
3.
Harris  LMed Health and the New Media: Technologies Transforming Personal and Public Health.  Mahwah, NJ Lawrence A Erlbaum Associates1995;
4.
Fox  SRainie  L Vital Decisions: How Internet Users Decide What Information to Trust When They or Their Loved Ones Are Sick: Technical Report From the Pew Internet and American Life Project.  Washington, DC Pew Research Center2002;
5.
Institute of Medicine, Speaking of Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations.  Washington, DC National Academies Press2002;
6.
Balch  DCTichenor  JM Telemedicine expanding the scope of health care information.  J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997;41- 5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Strode  SWGustke  SAllen  A Technical and clinical progress in telemedicine.  JAMA 1999;2811066- 1068PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Kline  K Popular media and health: images, effects, and institutions. Thompson  TLDorsey  AMMiller  KIParrott  Reds. Handbook of Health Communication. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence A Erlbaum Associates2003;557- 581Google Scholar
9.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide.  Washington, DC US Dept of Commerce1998;
10.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Thompson, Seeking Fastest Possible Results, Names First Health Information Technology Coordinator.  Washington, DC US Dept of Health and Human Services2004;News release
11.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Information for Health: A Strategy for Building the National Health Information Infrastructure.  Washington, DC US Dept of Health and Human Services2001;
12.
Kim  MIJohnson  KB Patient entry of information: evaluation of user interfaces.  J Med Internet Res 2004;6e13Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2004/2/e13. Accessed April 15, 2005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Institute of Medicine, Networking Health: Prescriptions for the Internet.  Washington, DC National Academy Press2000;
14.
Hersh  WR Medical informatics: improving health care through information.  JAMA 2002;2881955- 1958PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Eng  TRMaxfield  APatrick  KDeering  MJRatzan  SCGustafson  DH Access to health information and support: a public highway or a private road?  JAMA 1998;2801371- 1375PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Eng  TRedGustafson  DHed Wired for Health and Well-being: The Emergence of Interactive Health Communication.  Washington, DC US Dept of Health and Human Services1999;
17.
Pearson  SDRaeke  LH Patients’ trust in physicians: many theories, few measures, and little data.  J Gen Intern Med 2000;15509- 513PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Arora  NK Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians’ communication behavior.  Soc Sci Med 2003;57791- 806PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Voelker  R Northern ℞-posure: US, Canada clash on cross-border medication sales.  JAMA 2003;2902921- 2925PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Chen  XSiu  LL Impact of the media and the Internet on oncology: survey of cancer patients and oncologists in Canada.  J Clin Oncol 2001;194291- 4297Medline:11731511Google Scholar
21.
Smith  R The future of healthcare systems.  BMJ 1997;3141495- 1496PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Briss  PRimer  BReilley  B  et al.  Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems.  Am J Prev Med 2004;2667- 80PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Sheridan  SLHarris  RPWoolf  SH Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention: a suggested approach from the US Preventive Services Task Force.  Am J Prev Med 2004;2656- 66PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Harrington  JNoble  LMNewman  SP Improving patients’ communication with doctors: a systematic review of intervention studies.  Patient Educ Couns 2004;527- 16PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Coelho  PC The Internet: increasing information, decreasing certainty.  JAMA 1998;2801454Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Berland  GKElliott  MNMorales  LM  et al.  Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish.  JAMA 2001;2852612- 2621PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Murray  ELo  BPollack  L  et al.  The impact of health information on the Internet on the physician-patient relationship: patient perceptions.  Arch Intern Med 2003;1631727- 1734PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Nelson  DEKreps  GLHesse  BW  et al.  The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination.  J Health Commun 2004;9443- 460Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Tucker  CCasady  RJLepkowski  J A hierarchy of list-assisted stratified telephone sample design options.  1993 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods. Alexandria, Va American Statistical Association1993;982- 987Google Scholar
30.
American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/newstandarddefinitions.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2003
31.
Krosnick  JAChang  L A comparison of the random digit dialing telephone survey methodology with Internet survey methodology as implemented by Knowledge Networks and Harris Interactive. Available at: http://www.psy.ohio-state.edu/social/krosnick.htm. Accessed July 17, 2003
32.
Deville  JCSarndal  CE Calibration estimators in survey sampling.  J Am Stat Assoc 1992;87376- 382Google ScholarCrossref
33.
Korn  ELGraubard  BI Analysis of Health Surveys.  New York, NY John Wiley & Sons Inc1999;
34.
US Department of Commerce, A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet.  Washington, DC US Dept of Commerce2002;
35.
Madden  M America’s Online Pursuits: The Changing Picture of Who’s Online and What They Do: Technical Report From the Pew Internet and American Life Project.  Washington, DC Pew Research Center2003;
36.
Pew Research Center, Trends 2005: Information for the Public Interest.  Washington, DC Pew Research Center2005;
37.
Fox  S Health Information Online: Technical Report From the Pew Internet and American Life Project.  Washington, DC Pew Research Center2005;
38.
Horrigan  JRainie  L The Broadband Difference: How Online American’s Behavior Changes With High-Speed Internet Connections at Home: Technical Report From the Pew Internet and American Life Project.  Washington, DC Pew Research Center2002;
39.
Jung  HPBaerveldt  COlesen  FGrol  RWensing  M Patient characteristics as predictors of primary health care preferences: a systematic literature analysis.  Health Expect 2003;6160- 181PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Eysenbach  G The impact of the Internet on cancer outcomes.  CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53356- 371PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
US General Accounting Office, Internet Pharmacies: Some Pose Safety Risks for Consumers: Report to the Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, US Senate.  Washington, DC US General Accounting Office2004;Technical document 04-820
42.
Baker  LWagner  THSinger  SBundorf  MK Use of the Internet and email for health care information: results from a national survey.  JAMA 2003;2892400- 2406PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
The Institute for the Future, Health and Health Care 2010: The Forecast, the Challenge. 2nd ed. San Francisco, Calif Jossey-Bass2003;
44.
Fallows  D CAN-SPAM a year later. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org. Accessed May 31, 2005
45.
Hewitt  MBreen  NDevesa  S Cancer prevalence and survivorship issues: analyses of the 1992 National Health Interview Survey.  J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;911480- 1486PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Eysenbach  GPowell  JEnglesakis  MRizo  CStern  A Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions.  BMJ 2004;3281166- 1170PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Kemper  DWMettler  M Information Therapy: Prescribed Information as a Reimbursable Medical Service.  Boise, Idaho Healthwise Inc2002;
48.
DiMatteo  MR The role of the physician in the emerging health care environment.  West J Med 1998;168328- 333Google Scholar
49.
Robinson  TNPatrick  KEng  TRGustafson  D An evidence-based approach to interactive health communication: a challenge to medicine in the information age.  JAMA 1998;2801264- 1269PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Street  RL Communication in medical encounters: an ecological perspective. Thompson  TLDorsey  AMMiller  KIParrott  Reds. Handbook of Health Communication. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence A Erlbaum Associates2003;63- 89Google Scholar
51.
Epstein  RM The science of patient-centered care.  J Fam Pract 2000;49805- 807PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Anderson  EB Patient-centeredness: a new approach.  Nephrol News Issues 2002;1680- 82PubMedGoogle Scholar
53.
Eysenbach  GDiepgen  TL Towards quality management of medical information on the Internet: evaluation, labeling, and filtering of information.  BMJ 1998;3171496- 1500PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Silberg  WMLundberg  GDMusacchio  RA Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveat lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware.  JAMA 1997;2771244- 1245PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Viswanath  KFinnegan  JR The knowledge gap hypothesis: twenty-five years later. Burleson  Bed. Communication Yearbook 19. Thousand Oaks, Calif Sage Publications1996;187- 227Google Scholar
56.
Lenhart  AHorrigan  JRainie  L  et al.  The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look at Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Technical Report From the Pew Internet and American Life Project.  Washington, DC Pew Research Center2003;
57.
National Cancer Institute, The science of real-time data capture: self-reports in health research, September 5-7, 2003. Available at: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/hprb/real-time. Accessed April 15, 2005
Original Investigation
December 12/26, 2005

Trust and Sources of Health Information: The Impact of the Internet and Its Implications for Health Care Providers: Findings From the First Health Information National Trends Survey

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md (Drs Hesse, Croyle, and Arora); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga (Dr Nelson); Department of Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va (Dr Kreps); School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Dr Rimer); and Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard University and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Mass (Dr Viswanath).

Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2618-2624. doi:10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618
Abstract

Background  The context in which patients consume health information has changed dramatically with diffusion of the Internet, advances in telemedicine, and changes in media health coverage. The objective of this study was to provide nationally representative estimates for health-related uses of the Internet, level of trust in health information sources, and preferences for cancer information sources.

Methods  Data from the Health Information National Trends Survey were used. A total of 6369 persons 18 years or older were studied. The main outcome measures were online health activities, levels of trust, and source preference.

Results  Analyses indicated that 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7%-64.3%) of the US adult population in 2003 reported ever going online, with 63.7% (95% CI, 61.7%-65.8%) of the online population having looked for health information for themselves or others at least once in the previous 12 months. Despite newly available communication channels, physicians remained the most highly trusted information source to patients, with 62.4% (95% CI, 60.8%-64.0%) of adults expressing a lot of trust in their physicians. When asked where they preferred going for specific health information, 49.5% (95% CI, 48.1%-50.8%) reported wanting to go to their physicians first. When asked where they actually went, 48.6% (95% CI, 46.1%-51.0%) reported going online first, with only 10.9% (95% CI, 9.5%-12.3%) going to their physicians first.

Conclusion  The Health Information National Trends Survey data portray a tectonic shift in the ways in which patients consume health and medical information, with more patients looking for information online before talking with their physicians.

×