↓ Skip to main content

Effect of a Website That Presents Patients’ Experiences on Self-Efficacy and Patient Competence of Colorectal Cancer Patients: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of a Website That Presents Patients’ Experiences on Self-Efficacy and Patient Competence of Colorectal Cancer Patients: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, October 2017
DOI 10.2196/jmir.7639
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jürgen M Giesler, Bettina Keller, Tim Repke, Rainer Leonhart, Joachim Weis, Rebecca Muckelbauer, Nina Rieckmann, Jacqueline Müller-Nordhorn, Gabriele Lucius-Hoene, Christine Holmberg

Abstract

Patients often seek other patients' experiences with the disease. The Internet provides a wide range of opportunities to share and learn about other people's health and illness experiences via blogs or patient-initiated online discussion groups. There also exists a range of medical information devices that include experiential patient information. However, there are serious concerns about the use of such experiential information because narratives of others may be powerful and pervasive tools that may hinder informed decision making. The international research network DIPEx (Database of Individual Patients' Experiences) aims to provide scientifically based online information on people's experiences with health and illness to fulfill patients' needs for experiential information, while ensuring that the presented information includes a wide variety of possible experiences. The aim is to evaluate the colorectal cancer module of the German DIPEx website krankheitserfahrungen.de with regard to self-efficacy for coping with cancer and patient competence. In 2015, a Web-based randomized controlled trial was conducted using a two-group between-subjects design and repeated measures. The study sample consisted of individuals who had been diagnosed with colorectal cancer within the past 3 years or who had metastasis or recurrent disease. Outcome measures included self-efficacy for coping with cancer and patient competence. Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group that had immediate access to the colorectal cancer module for 2 weeks or to a waiting list control group. Outcome criteria were measured at baseline before randomization and at 2 weeks and 6 weeks. The study randomized 212 persons. On average, participants were 54 (SD 11.1) years old, 58.8% (124/211) were female, and 73.6% (156/212) had read or heard stories of other patients online before entering the study, thus excluding any influence of the colorectal cancer module on krankheitserfahrungen.de. No intervention effects were found at 2 and 6 weeks after baseline. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that the website studied may increase self-efficacy for coping with cancer or patient competencies such as self-regulation or managing emotional distress. Possible explanations may involve characteristics of the website itself, its use by participants, or methodological reasons. Future studies aimed at evaluating potential effects of websites providing patient experiences on the basis of methodological principles such as those of DIPEx might profit from extending the range of outcome measures, from including additional measures of website usage behavior and users' motivation, and from expanding concepts, such as patient competency to include items that more directly reflect patients' perceived effects of using such a website. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02157454; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02157454 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6syrvwXxi).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Master 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 38 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Psychology 8 8%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 45 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2019.
All research outputs
#5,311,777
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#3,698
of 7,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,942
of 335,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#72
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.