4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Patterns of Internet use: Bariatric versus colorectal patients in a private institution

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
Volume 199, Issue 2, Pages 223-228

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.03.009

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The frequency of Internet use for self-directed medical care in different patient populations is increasing. We evaluated Internet use by patients presenting for bariatric surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Surveys were completed by 136 patients (109 women, 22 men) presenting to a private academic clinic for bariatric surgery. Data collected included age, gender, education level, household income, and pattern of Internet use. Comparisons were made with a group of 135 patients who visited a colorectal surgery clinic in the same institution. RESULTS: Bariatric patients who used the Internet were more likely than colorectal patients to inform themselves about their medical problem (76% versus 49%, p < 0.001) and tended to use the Internet more overall (85% versus 78%, p = ns). Use of the Internet to research bariatric surgery was associated with education level (p = 0.002) and household income (p = 0.01), but not with age or gender. Bariatric patients were more likely than colorectal patients to search our institution's Web site (40% versus 17%, p < 0.001) and to use the Internet to find out about their surgeon (47% versus 31%, p = 0.01). Only 9% of bariatric patients used a chat room. Ninety-six percent of bariatric patients found the information on the Internet easy to understand and 58% described it as very helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric patients are especially likely to use the Internet to gain information about their medical condition, possibly reflecting their limited mobility. This represents an educational opportunity for the surgical community. (C) 2004 by the American College of Surgeons.

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