title: Doctor-patient communication about cancer-related internet information.
abstract: This article explores the effect of doctor-patient communication about cancer-related Internet information on self-reported outcomes. Two hundred and thirty cancer patients and caregivers completed an online survey regarding their experiences searching for and discussing with their doctors cancer-related Internet information. Participants who assertively introduced the Internet information in a consultation were more likely to have their doctor agree with the information. When doctors showed interest and involvement and took the information seriously, participants were less likely to report a desire to change the doctor's response. Taking the information seriously was also associated with greater satisfaction. This preliminary evidence that the doctor's response is associated with patient outcomes indicates the potential for improving patient-centered communication. In an effort to maximize patient-centered communication, doctors should be encouraged to take their patients and the information they present seriously, as well as show their patients that they are interested and involved.
authors.affiliation: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
authors.forename: Carma L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Bylund
authors.forename: Jennifer A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Gueguen
authors.forename: Thomas A
authors.initials: TA
authors.lastname: D'Agostino
authors.forename: Yuelin
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Ellen
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Sonet
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D054626:Consumer Health Information; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D020407:Internet; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000628:therapy*; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D018802:Patient-Centered Care; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D014481:United States
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Mar;17(3):180-5
references.pmid: 11929503
references.citation: J Health Commun. 2007 Jan-Feb;12(1):17-28
references.pmid: 17365346
references.citation: Health (London). 2005 Jul;9(3):319-38
references.pmid: 15937035
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2003 Mar 1;21(5):942-7
references.pmid: 12610198
references.citation: Cancer Pract. 2002 Nov-Dec;10(6):305-10
references.pmid: 12406053
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Jun;66(3):346-52
references.pmid: 17329062
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 1;23(22):4954-62
references.pmid: 16051948
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 2003 Jul 28;163(14):1727-34
references.pmid: 12885689
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Jul 15;56(4):1201-5
references.pmid: 12829160
references.citation: Med J Aust. 2005 Aug 15;183(4):197-200
references.pmid: 16097920
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Aug;20(8):683-5
references.pmid: 16050874
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2002 Apr-Nov;4(2):E9
references.pmid: 12554556
references.citation: Health Commun. 2007;21(2):177-85
references.pmid: 17523863
references.citation: Chest. 2003 Feb;123(2):452-7
references.pmid: 12576365
references.citation: Qual Health Res. 2005 Mar;15(3):325-45
references.pmid: 15761103
references.citation: Cancer. 2004 Jun 1;100(11):2476-83
references.pmid: 15160355
references.citation: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 May;52(5):779-85
references.pmid: 15858466
references.citation: J Health Commun. 1998 Jul-Sep;3(3):233-59
references.pmid: 10977257
references.citation: Urology. 2003 Aug;62(2):273-7
references.pmid: 12893334
references.citation: Proc AMIA Symp. 2002;:260-4
references.pmid: 12463827