4.5 Article

The Impact of Electronic Media on Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

期刊

RISK MANAGEMENT AND HEALTHCARE POLICY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 809-813

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S285088

关键词

inflammatory bowel disease; electronic media; internet; Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the use of the internet in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and found that most patients used it to gather information about their disease and symptoms, with internet use not directly influencing anxiety and stress levels.
Introduction and Objectives: Patients with chronic illnesses, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), may often consult the internet, which can cause anguish, fear, stress and anxiety. The aim of our study is to evaluate the use of the internet and its effects on patients with IBD. Patients and Methods: This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study with quantitative frequency analysis. We applied a questionnaire comprising questions about internet use, and the DASS21 questionnaire to analyze internet impact on patients' stress and/or anxiety for 36 months. Results: A total of 104 patients were included over a period of 45 days (82% CD, 18% UC). The mean age was 41.3 years (+/- 15.9 years). Internet use was more frequent in patients with a mean age of 39.5 years (+/- 14.4 years), with the highest frequencies found in the age group of 26-36 years. Internet use were related to: 72.6% general information about the disease, 87.3% symptom information (42.1% once a week, 27.4% never, 18.8% once a month, 10.5% daily, and 3.2% twice a day). The most visited search engine was Google 63.7% and the most visited sites were: patient group sites 16.7%, health sites 16.2% medical sites 12.8%. Conclusion: The internet is often a resource utilized by patients with IBD and although these patients sought to obtain more information about their disease and their symptoms. The internet was not a factor influencing anxiety and stress for these patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据