Views on a Web 2.0 Diabetes Portalðthe Management Tool, the Generator, and the Gatekeeper: Qualitative Study (E17) Sam Nordfeldt, Lena Hanberger, Carina Berterö
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Medical Internet Research Impact Factor (2018): 4.945 - ranked #1 medical informatics journal by Impact Factor Volume 12 (2010), Issue 2 ISSN: 1438-8871 Editor in Chief: Gunther Eysenbach, MD, MPH Contents Original Papers An International Comparison of Web-based Reporting About Health Care Quality: Content Analysis (e8) Olga Damman, Ylva van den Hengel, A van Loon, Jany Rademakers. 3 Clinician Search Behaviors May Be Influenced by Search Engine Design (e25) Annie Lau, Enrico Coiera, Tatjana Zrimec, Paul Compton. 24 Mobile Therapy: Case Study Evaluations of a Cell Phone Application for Emotional Self-Awareness (e10) Margaret Morris, Qusai Kathawala, Todd Leen, Ethan Gorenstein, Farzin Guilak, Michael Labhard, William Deleeuw. 33 Dirt Cheap and Without Prescription: How Susceptible are Young US Consumers to Purchasing Drugs From Rogue Internet Pharmacies? (e11) Lana Ivanitskaya, Jodi Brookins-Fisher, Irene OÂBoyle, Danielle Vibbert, Dmitry Erofeev, Lawrence Fulton. 55 Perspectives of Family Physicians on Computer-assisted Health-risk Assessments (e12) Farah Ahmad, Harvey Skinner, Donna Stewart, Wendy Levinson. 70 Effects of a Financial Incentive on Health Researchers' Response to an Online Survey: a Randomized Controlled Trial (e13) Paul Wilson, Mark Petticrew, Mike Calnan, Irwin Nazareth. 82 Sharing Medical Data for Health Research: The Early Personal Health Record Experience (e14) Elissa Weitzman, Liljana Kaci, Kenneth Mandl. 91 Supporting Informed Decision Making Online in 20 Minutes: An Observational Web-log Study of a PSA Test Decision Aid (e15) Natalie Joseph-Williams, Rhodri Evans, Adrian Edwards, Robert Newcombe, Patricia Wright, Richard Grol, Glyn Elwyn. 101 Patient and Parent Views on a Web 2.0 Diabetes PortalÐthe Management Tool, the Generator, and the Gatekeeper: Qualitative Study (e17) Sam Nordfeldt, Lena Hanberger, Carina Berterö. 112 Sharing Health Data for Better Outcomes on PatientsLikeMe (e19) Paul Wicks, Michael Massagli, Jeana Frost, Catherine Brownstein, Sally Okun, Timothy Vaughan, Richard Bradley, James Heywood. 124 Online Communication Between Doctors and Patients in Europe: Status and Perspectives (e20) Silvina Santana, Berthold Lausen, Maria Bujnowska-Fedak, Catherine Chronaki, Per Kummervold, Janne Rasmussen, Tove Sorensen. 136 Journal of Medical Internet Research 2010 | vol. 12 | iss. 2 | p.1 XSL·FO RenderX Effectiveness of Web-based Interventions on Patient Empowerment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (e23) David Samoocha, David Bruinvels, Nieke Elbers, Johannes Anema, Allard van der Beek. 168 Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: A Systematic Review (e18) Tom Van De Belt, Lucien Engelen, Sivera Berben, Lisette Schoonhoven. 185 Preventing the Obesity Epidemic by Second Generation Tailored Health Communication: An Interdisciplinary Review (e24) Heidi Enwald, Maija-Leena Huotari. 214 Orginal Paper Health Information Technology to Facilitate Communication Involving Health Care Providers, Caregivers, and Pediatric Patients: A Scoping Review (e22) Stephen Gentles, Cynthia Lokker, K McKibbon. 150 Review Clinical Effects of Home Telemonitoring in the Context of Diabetes, Asthma, Heart Failure and Hypertension: A Systematic Review (e21) Guy Paré, Khalil Moqadem, Gilles Pineau, Carole St-Hilaire. 199 Letter The Touro 12-Step: A Systematic Guide to Optimizing Survey Research with Online Discussion Boards (e16) Eric Ip, Mitchell Barnett, Michael Tenerowicz, Paul Perry. 233 Journal of Medical Internet Research 2010 | vol. 12 | iss. 2 | p.2 XSL·FO RenderX JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH Damman et al Original Paper An International Comparison of Web-based Reporting About Health Care Quality: Content Analysis Olga C Damman1, MSc; Ylva KA van den Hengel2, MSc; A Jeanne M van Loon2, PhD; Jany Rademakers1, PhD 1NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Utrecht, the Netherlands 2RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Bilthoven, the Netherlands Corresponding Author: Olga C Damman, MSc NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research) P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht the Netherlands Phone: 31 30 272 97 00 Fax: 31 30 272 97 29 Email: [email protected] Abstract Background: On more and more websites, consumers are provided with public reports about health care. This move toward provision of more comparative information has resulted in different information types being published that often contain contradictory information. Objective: The objective was to assess the current state of the art in the presentation of online comparative health care information and to compare how the integration of different information types is dealt with on websites. The content analysis was performed in order to provide website managers and Internet researchers with a resource of knowledge about presentation formats being applied internationally. Methods: A Web search was used to identify websites that contained comparative health care information. The websites were systematically examined to assess how three different types of information (provider characteristics and services, performance indicators, and health care user experience) were presented to consumers. Furthermore, a short survey was disseminated to the reviewed websites to assess how the presentation formats were selected. Results: We reviewed 42 websites from the following countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Sweden. We found the most common ways to integrate different information types were the two extreme options: no integration at all (on 36% of the websites) and high levels of integration in single tables on 41% of the websites). Nearly 70% of the websites offered drill down paths to more detailed information. Diverse presentation approaches were used to display comparative health care information on the Internet. Numbers were used on the majority of websites (88%) to display comparative information. Conclusions: Currently, approaches to the presentation of comparative health care information do not seem to be systematically selected. It seems important, however, that website managers become aware of the complexities inherent in comparative information when they release information on the Web. Important complexities to pay attention to are the use of numbers, the display of contradictory information, and the extent of variation among attributes and attribute levels. As for the integration of different information types, it remains unclear which presentation approaches are preferable. Our study provides a good starting point for Internet research to further address the question of how different types of information can be more effectively presented to consumers. (J Med Internet Res 2010;12(2):e8) doi:10.2196/jmir.1191 KEYWORDS Consumer health information; information display; decision making; Internet; international comparison; content analysis http://www.jmir.org/2010/2/e8/ J Med Internet Res 2010 | vol. 12 | iss. 2 | e8 | p.3 (page number not for citation purposes) XSL·FO RenderX JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH Damman et al mixed: higher numbers of features on websites have been Introduction associated with both positive [16,17] and negative [18] attitudes. Public reporting of comparative health care information has In this context, the number of different types of information become increasingly important in several countries. Comparative and the structure in which these are presented are important health care information is information by which consumers can [19]. make explicit comparisons between the performances of health With respect to public comparative health care information, van care providers or health plans in order to make an informed Loon and Tolboom [20] defined three different information choice. In the United States and the United Kingdom, efforts types. The first type is information about the characteristics and to make this kind of information publicly available have been services provided by individual health care providers and health ongoing for about fifteen years. The aims are to increase public care facilities. This is factual information about providers' accountability and to support consumer choice in health care names, addresses, and the geographic region in which health and indirectly to improve the quality of health services. Health care is provided as well as information about the type of provider care policy in the Netherlands currently focuses on transparency (eg, academic or non-academic hospital), provider specialty, as well: health care consumers are encouraged to make use of available facilities, provider's religion, costs of services, and public comparative information about health care services and waiting times. The second information type is information about quality [1,2]. Dutch consumers have been provided with public quality of health care based on performance indicators, usually reports of health care information in newspapers and magazines derived from existing provider registrations (ie, administrative since the late 1990s. In addition, comparative health care records) or registrations required by governments and information has been published on the Internet in the established for public reporting purposes. These concern medical Netherlands for the past few years. and health care performance information based on relatively The number of websites containing comparative health care factual information relating to a particular health facility such reports