4.1 Article

Australian health professionals' health website recommendation trends

期刊

HEALTH PROMOTION JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 134-141

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1071/HE11134

关键词

health websites; health professionals; Internet; Continuing Professional Development; reliability issues; E-health; health care delivery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction:This study was concerned with indentifying motivations and trends associated with a health website recommendation from eight of Australia's major health professions to the health consumer. Health professions included in this study are: psychiatrists, general practitioners, social workers, dietitians, chiropractors, physiotherapists, optometrists and pharmacists. Methods: An online survey (www.limesurvey.org) was developed from a common set of questions negotiated between all eight health professions. Survey questions were constructed in an attempt to identify participants' reasons for or against recommending a health website to a patient. A 5-point scale (not, slightly, neutral, moderately, strongly) to measure influence was used throughout the question set. Results: This study indicates that Australian general practitioners (GPs) were the highest Australian health professionals to undertake a health website recommendation (86%), followed by psychiatrists (80%), with the lowest being physiotherapists (42%) and optometrists (33%). A profile of the Australian health professional who recommends a health website is identified as male, aged above 50 years, has had more than 10 years experience, works in a major city, is in private practice and has patient numbers exceeding 500 in a 12-month period (2009). Conclusion: Recommendations from this study include the need to develop mechanisms that identify high-quality online medical information and the development and implementation of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) courses which up-skill health professionals concerning the recommendation of health websites for health care delivery.

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

4.1
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