4.5 Article

Expert and experiential knowledge in the same place: Patients' experiences with online communities connecting patients and health professionals

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages 265-270

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.02.003

Keywords

Internet; Patients; Physicians; Online health communities; Information; Expert knowledge; Lay knowledge; Reliability

Funding

  1. MijnZorgnet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To explore patients' experiences with online health communities in which both physicians and patients participate (i.e. patient-to-doctor or T2D' communities). Methods: A qualitative content analysis was conducted, based on observations in five P20 communities ranging from 8 to 21 months, and semi-structured interviews (N = 17) with patients. Results: Patients consider information from physicians and peers as two distinct sources, value both sources differently and appreciate accessing both in the same web space. According to respondents, physicians can provide 'reliable' and evidence-based information, while patients add experience-based information. Patients use this information for multiple purposes, including being informed about scientific research and personal reflection. Conclusion: Patients find P2D communities beneficial because they help patients to collect information from both medical experts and experiential experts in one place. Practice implications: Patients use P20 communities to perform medical, emotional and lifestyle activities. The presence of physicians in P20 communities may inadvertently suggest that the quality of information used for the activities, is controlled. When information is not officially being checked, this should be stated explicitly on the website and supplemented with a statement that information is only indicative and that patients should at all times contact their own physicians. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available