title: Information from the Internet and the doctor-patient relationship: the patient perspective--a qualitative study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Both doctors and patients may perceive the Internet as a potential challenge to existing therapeutic relationships. Here we examine patients' views of the effect of the Internet on their relationship with doctors.
  
  
  METHODS
  We ran 8 disease specific focus groups of between 2 and 8 respondents comprising adult patients with diabetes mellitus, ischaemic heart disease or hepatitis C.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Data are presented on (i) the perceived benefits and (ii) limitations of the Internet in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, (iii) views on sharing information with doctors, and (iv) the potential of the Internet for the future. Information from the Internet was particularly valued in relation to experiential knowledge.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Despite evidence of increasing patient activism in seeking information and the potential to challenge the position of the doctor, the accounts here do not in any way suggest a desire to disrupt the existing balance of power, or roles, in the consultation. Patients appear to see the Internet as an additional resource to support existing and valued relationships with their doctors. Doctors therefore need not feel challenged or threatened when patients bring health information from the Internet to a consultation, rather they should see it as an attempt on the part of the patient to work with the doctor and respond positively.
authors: Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London, Hampstead Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, UK. f.stevenson@pcps.ucl.ac.uk
authors: Fiona A
authors: FA
authors: Stevenson
authors: Cicely
authors: C
authors: Kerr
authors: Elizabeth
authors: E
authors: Murray
authors: Irwin
authors: I
authors: Nazareth
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001292:Attitude to Computers; D003920:Diabetes Mellitus / Q000628:therapy; D005260:Female; D017144:Focus Groups; D006526:Hepatitis C / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D007255:Information Services / Q000592:standards*; D020407:Internet / Q000592:standards*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017202:Myocardial Ischemia / Q000628:therapy; D010353:Patient Education as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D010358:Patient Participation / Q000523:psychology*; D017060:Patient Satisfaction / Q000208:ethnology / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors; D006113:United Kingdom; D014584:User-Computer Interface
references: Soc Sci Med. 2004 Nov;59(9):1795-806
references: 15312915
references: BMJ. 2004 Mar 6;328(7439):564
references: 15001506
references: J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11 Suppl 1:32-4
references: 16035986
references: Med J Aust. 2005 Aug 15;183(4):197-200
references: 16097920
references: Sociol Health Illn. 2005 Nov;27(7):972-92
references: 16313525
references: J Health Psychol. 2006 Mar;11(2):269-82
references: 16464924
references: J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(3):e13
references: 16954123
references: Intern Med J. 2006 Nov;36(11):718-23
references: 17040358
references: J Clin Oncol. 2001 Dec 1;19(23):4291-7
references: 11731511
references: Support Care Cancer. 2003 May;11(5):286-93
references: 12690539
references: JAMA. 2003 Jul 9;290(2):259-64
references: 12851283
references: Arch Intern Med. 2003 Jul 28;163(14):1727-34
references: 12885689
references: Sociol Health Illn. 2003 Sep;25(6):589-607
references: 12919447
references: J Med Internet Res. 2003 Jul-Sep;5(3):e17
references: 14517108
references: Qual Health Res. 2005 Mar;15(3):325-45
references: 15761103