J Med Internet Res. 2024 Jun 06. 26 e47620
BACKGROUND: The internet has become a prevalent source of health information for patients. However, its accuracy and relevance are often questionable. While patients seek physicians' expertise in interpreting internet health information, physicians' perspectives on patients' information-seeking behavior are less explored.OBJECTIVE: This review aims to understand physicians' perceptions of patients' internet health information-seeking behavior as well as their communication strategies and the challenges and needs they face with internet-informed patients.
METHODS: An initial search in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Communication and Mass Media Complete, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from January 1990 to August 1, 2022. A subsequent search on December 24, 2023, targeted recent studies published after the initial search cutoff date. Two reviewers independently performed title, abstract, and full-text screening, adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement guidelines. Thematic analysis was then used to identify key themes and systematically categorize evidence from both qualitative and quantitative studies under these themes.
RESULTS: A total of 22 qualifying articles were identified after the search and screening process. Physicians were found to hold diverse views on patients' internet searches, which can be viewed as a continuous spectrum of opinions ranging from positive to negative. While some physicians leaned distinctly toward either positive or negative perspectives, a significant number expressed more balanced views. These physicians recognized both the benefits, such as increased patient health knowledge and informed decision-making, and the potential harms, including misinformation and the triggering of negative emotions, such as patient anxiety or confusion, associated with patients' internet health information seeking. Two communicative strategies were identified: the participative and defensive approaches. While the former seeks to guide internet-informed patients to use internet information with physicians' expertise, the latter aims to discourage patients from using the internet to seek health information. Physicians' perceptions were linked to their strategies: those holding positive views tended to adopt a participative approach, while those with negative views favored a defensive strategy. Some physicians claimed to shift between the 2 approaches depending on their interaction with a certain patient. We also identified several challenges and needs of physicians in dealing with internet-informed patients, including the time pressure to address internet-informed patient demands, a lack of structured training, and being uninformed about trustworthy internet sites that can be recommended to internet-informed patients.
CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the diverse perceptions that physicians hold toward internet-informed patients, as well as the interplay between their perceptions, communication strategies, and their interactions with individual patients. Incorporating elements into the medical teaching curriculum that introduce physicians to reliable internet health resources for patient guidance, coupled with providing updates on technological advancements, could be instrumental in equipping physicians to more effectively manage internet-informed patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022356317; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=356317.
Keywords: digital health; health information–seeking; internet-informed patients; misinformation; physician-patient communication