Advertisement

The effect of e-health information on nurse-patient encounters: Mutual feelings and perceptions

  • Sivia Barnoy
  • Semyon Melnikov
  • Yoram Bar-Tal
Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Patients commonly search for e-health information about their illnesses which may be drawn from sites with varying reliability, and might contradict treatment recommendations. The present study was an early phase study that examined nurses’ and patients’ feelings and perceptions after an encounter with patients who present e-health information. Altogether 87 nurses and 118 patients answered a scenario-based questionnaire, in which patients presented nurses with e-health information of varying reliability that contradicted the nurse’s own treatment recommendations. Respondents were asked to appraise their own feelings (control, comfort and knowledge expertise) in such a situation and how they thought their role-partner would feel in such a situation (nurses about patients; patients about nurses). The results show that regardless of the information reliability, the nurses thought that they would feel more positive than the patients, while patients thought they would feel less positive than the nurse. Positive correlations were found between nurses’ feelings and their expectations of patients feelings. The same was not true for patients. In conclusion, both parties agreed that the nurse’s response would be more positive than the patients. However, when appraising patient’s reactions and feelings, nurses expressed an egocentric bias.

Keywords

E-health information Information reliability Feelings 

Notes

Funding

The project was not funded by any organization.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Sivia Barnoy declares that she has no conflict of interest. Semyon Melnikov declares that he has no conflict of interest. Yoram Bar-Tal declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahmad, F., Hudak, P. L., Bercovitz, K., Hollenberg, E., & Levinson, W. (2006). Are physicians ready for patients with internet-based health information? Journal of medical internet research, 8(3), e22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerkar, S. M., & Bichile, L. S. (2004). Doctor patient relationship: Changing dynamics in the information age. Journal of Postgradute Medicine, 50(2), 120–122.Google Scholar
  3. Altan-Ederm, S., & Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2006). The role of the internet in physician-patient relationships: The issue of trust. Business Horizons, 49, 387–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnoy, S., Levy, O., & Bar-Tal, Y. (2010). Nurse or physician: Whose recommendation influences the decision to take genetic tests more? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(4), 806–813.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnoy, S., Volfin-Pruss, D., Ehrenfeld, M., & Kushnir, T. (2011). Self-epistemic authority and nurses' reactions to medical information that is retrieved from internet sites of different credibility. Nursing & Health Sciences, 13(3), 366–370.Google Scholar
  6. Bianco, A., Zucco, R., Nobile, C. G. A., Pileggi, C., & Pavia, M. (2013). Parents seeking health-related information on the internet: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(9), e204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Breslin, K. A., Kumar, V. K., Ryan, R. B., Browne, J., & Porter, J. (2017). Effect of apology on interpersonal forgiveness and distancing within familial relationships. Current Psychology, 36(3), 618–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, D. M., DeVellis, R. F., Fisher, E. B., DeVellis, B. M., Hogan, S. L., & Jordan, J. M. (2010). The effect of conflicting medication information and physician support on medication adherence for chronically ill patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 81(2), 169–176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. de Oliveira, J. F. (2013). The implications of internet use in the doctor – patient relationship: A case study in a hospital in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Revista de Gestão em Sistemas de Saúde, 2(1), 42–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunning, D., Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. F. (2001). Egocentric empathy gaps in social interaction and exchange. In Advances in Group Processes (pp. 65–97). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  11. Forkner-Dunn, J. (2003). Internet-based patient self-care: The next generation of health care delivery. Journal of Medicine Internet Research, 5, e8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox, S. (2014). Pew research center internet science and tec. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/the-social-life-of-health-information/ on October 8th 2016.
  13. Fox, S. & Duggan, M. (2013). Health Online 2013. Washington DC: PEW Internet & American Life Project 2013. Retrieved August 1, 2016 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/ on.
  14. Gee, P. M., Greenwood, D. A., Kim, K. K., Perez, S. L., Staggers, N., & DeVon, H. A. (2012). Exploration of the e-patient phenomenon in nursing informatics. Nursing Outlook, 60(4), e9-e16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilmour, J., Strong, A., Chan, H. I., Hanna, S., & Huntington, A. (2014). Primary health care nurses and heart failure education: A survey. Journal of Primary Health Care, 693(3), 229–237.Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & \Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 227–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guinote, A. (2007). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(5), 685–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guinote, A., Brown, M., & Fiske, S. (2006). Minority status decreases sense of control and increases interpretive processing. Social Cognition, 24(2), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kruger, J., Windschitl, P. D., Burrus, J., Fessel, F., & Chambers, J. R. (2008). The rational side of egocentrism in social comparisons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McNally, S. L., Donohue, M. C., Newton, K. P., Ogletree, S. P., Conner, K. K., Ingegneri, S. E., & Kagnoff, M. F. (2012). Can consumers trust web-based information about celiac disease? Accuracy, comprehensiveness, transparency, and readability of information on the internet. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 1(1), e1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Mendes, Á., Abreu, L., Vilar-Correia, M. R., & Borlido-Santos, J. (2017). “That should be left to doctors, that’s what they are there for!”—exploring the reflexivity and trust of young adults when seeking health information. Health Communication, 32(9), 1076–1081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Petersson, L., & Erlingsdottir, G. (2015). Will PatientsLikeMe. com affect the doctor–patient relation and the work environment of doctors. In 19th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2015) in Melbourne.Google Scholar
  23. Simon, B. (1993). On the asymmetry in the cognitive construal of ingroup and outgroup: A model of egocentric social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sivakumar, G., & Mares, M. L. (2016). The doctor versus the internet: Effects of low-, medium-, and high-quality websites on intentions to follow the doctor’s advice. Health Communication, 32(12), 1454–1462.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Suggs, L. S., & McIntyre, C. (2009). Are we there yet? An examination of online tailored health communication. Health Education & Behavior, 36, 278–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suziedelyte, A. (2012). How does searching for health information on the internet affect individuals' demand for health care services? Social Science & Medicine, 75(10), 1828–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tan, S. S. L., & Goonawardene, N. (2017). Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(1), e9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Tuohy, A. P., & Wrennall, M. J. (1995). Seeing themselves as others see them: Scottish police officers' metaperceptions of public opinion. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5(5), 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Willems, F., Denessen, E., Hermans, C., & Vermeer, P. (2012). Students’ perceptions and teachers’ self-ratings of modelling civic virtues: An exploratory empirical study in Dutch primary schools. Journal of Moral Education, 41(1), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Young, W. B., Minnick, A. F., & Marcantonio, R. (1996). How wide is the gap in defining quality care?: Comparison of patient and nurse perceptions of important aspects of patient care. Journal of Nursing Administration, 26(5), 15–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nursing DepartmentSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations