The Evolving Role of Consumers

  • James E. AndrewsEmail author
  • J. David Johnson
  • Christina Eldredge
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


The culmination of the changes in healthcare, motivated in many ways by the rapid evolution of information and communication technologies in parallel with the shift toward increased patient decision-making and empowerment, has critical implications for clinical research, from recruitment and participation to, ultimately, successful outcomes. This chapter explores the developments impacting health consumers from various perspectives, with some focus on foundational issues in health communication and information behaviors as related to health consumerism. An overarching concern is the information environment within which health consumers are immersed, which is increasingly social, and underlying communication issues and emerging technologies contributing to the changing nature of patients’ information world. Not surprisingly, we will see that core findings from communication and information behavior research have relevance for our current understanding and future models of the evolving role of the health consumer.


Health consumerism Consumer health information Consumer health movement Patient empowerment Patient engagement Public access technologies Personalization of medicine 


  1. 1.
    Swan M. Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6:492–525. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wallerstein N. What is the evidence on effectiveness of empowerment to improve health? World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2006. Accessed Aug 2011.
  3. 3.
    Lemire M, Sicotte C, Paré G. Internet use and the logics of personal empowerment in health. Health Policy. 2008;88:130–40. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson JD. Cancer-related information seeking. Cresskill: Hampton Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rice RE, Atkin CK. Preface: trends in communication campaign research. In: Rice RE, Atkin CK, editors. Public communication campaigns. Newbury Park: Sage; 1989. p. 7–11.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkin C, Walleck L, editors. Mass communication and public health. Newbury Park: Sage; 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson JD, Andrews JE, Case DO, Allard SL, Johnson NE. Fields and/or pathways: contrasting and/or complementary views of information seeking. Inf Process Manag. 2006;42:569–82. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Noar SM. A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: where do we go from here? J Health Commun. 2006;11:21–42. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hornik RC. Epilogue: evaluation design for public health communication programs. In: Hornik RC, editor. Public health communication: evidence for behavior change. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. p. 385–405.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noar SM. Challenges in evaluating health communication campaigns: defining the issues. Commun Methods Meas. 2009;3:1–11. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freimuth VS. Improve the cancer knowledge gap between whites and African Americans. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;14:81–92.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freimuth VS, Stein JA, Kean TJ. Searching for health information: the cancer information service model. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alcalay R. The impact of mass communication campaigns in the health field. Soc Sci Med. 1983;17:87–94. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katz E, Lazersfeld PF. Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press; 1955.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lichter I. Communication in cancer care. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers EM, Storey JD. Communication campaigns. In: Berger CR, Chaffee SH, editors. Handbook of communication science. Newbury Park: Sage; 1987. p. 817–46.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allison M. Can web 2.0 reboot clinical trials? Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:895–902. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mills EJ, Seely D, Rachlis B, et al. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(2):141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Atkinson NL, Massett HA, Mylks C, Hanna B, Deering MJ, Hesse BW. User-centered research on breast cancer patient needs and preferences of an internet-based clinical trial matching system. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9:e13. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marks L, Power E. Using technology to address recruitment issues in the clinical trial process. Trends Biotechnol. 2002;20:105–9. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fox S, Jones S. The social life of health information: Americans’ pursuit of health takes place within a widening network of both online and offline sources. Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2009. Accessed Aug 2011.
  22. 22.
    Barak A, Boniel-Nissim M, Suler J. Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Comput Hum Behav. 2008;24:1867–83. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wicks P, Massagli M, Frost J, Brownstein C, Okun S, Vaughan T, Bradley R, Heywood J. Sharing health data for better outcomes on PatientsLikeMe. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12:e19. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cool C. The concept of situation in information science. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol. 2001;35:5–42.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson JD. Information seeking: an organizational dilemma. Westport: Quorom Books; 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rice RE, McCreadie M, Chang SL. Accessing and browsing information and communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sonnenwald DH, Wildemuth BM, Harmon GL. A research method to investigate information seeking using the concept of information horizons: an example from a study of lower socio-economic students’ information seeking behavior. New Rev Inf Behav Res. 2001;2:65–85.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scott J. Social network analysis: a handbook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuhlthau CC. Inside the search process: information seeking from the user’s perspective. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 1991;42:361–71.<361::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-#.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Williamson K. Discovered by chance: the role of incidental information acquisition in an ecological model of information use. Libr Inf Sci Res. 1998;20:23–40. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fisher KE, Durrance JC, Hinton MB. Information grounds and the use of need-based services by immigrants in Queens, New York: a context-based, outcome evaluation approach. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2004;55:754–66. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Clifton A, Turkheimer E, Oltmanns TF. Personality disorder in social networks: network position as a marker of interpersonal dysfunction. Soc Netw. 2009;31:26–32. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cornwell B. Good health and the bridging of structural holes. Soc Netw. 2009;31:92–103. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Adelman MB, Parks MR, Albrecht TL. Beyond close relationships: support in weak ties. In: Albrecht TL, Adelman MB, editors. Communicating social support. Newbury Park: Sage; 1987. p. 126–47.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Albrecht TL, Adelman MB. Communication networks as structures of social support. In: Albrecht TL, Adelman MB, editors. Communicating social support. Newbury Park: Sage; 1987. p. 40–63.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Becker MH, Rosenstock IN. Compliance with medical advice. In: Steptoe A, Mathews A, editors. Health care and human behavior. London: Academic; 1984. p. 175–208.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rogers EM, Kincaid DL. Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press; 1981.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johnson JD. Managing knowledge networks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. AJS. 1973;78:1360–80.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fox S, Raine L. How internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2002. Accessed Aug 2011.
  41. 41.
    Taylor H, Leitman R. Four-nation survey shows widespread but different levels of Internet use for health purposes. Harris Interactive Healthcare Care News. 2002. Accessed Aug 2011.
  42. 42.
    Lowery W, Anderson WB. The impact of web use on the public perception of physicians. Paper presented to the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Miami Beach; 2002.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Johnson JD. Dosage: a bridging metaphor for theory and practice. Int J Strateg Commun. 2008;2:137–53. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Parrott R, Steiner C. Lessons learned about academic and public health collaborations in the conduct of community-based research. In: Thompson TL, Dorsey AM, Miller K, Parrott RL, editors. Handbook of health communication. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003. p. 637–50.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Case D, Johnson JD, Andrews JE, Allard S, Kelly KM. From two-step flow to the internet: the changing array of sources for genetics information seeking. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2004;55:660–9. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shapiro AL. The control revolution……: how the internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know. New York: Public Affairs; 1999.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Metoyer-Duran C. Information gatekeepers. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol. 1993;28:111–50.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Burt RS. Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Katz E. The two step flow of communication: an up to date report on an hypothesis. Public Opin Q. 1957;21:61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Paisley WJ. Knowledge utilization: the role of new communications technologies. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1993;44:222–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Frost J, Massagli M. PatientsLikeMe the case for a data-centered patient community and how ALS patients use the community to inform treatment decisions and manage pulmonary health. Chron Respir Dis. 2009;6:225–9. Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brownstein CA, Brownstein JS, Williams DS III, Wicks P, Heywood JA. The power of social networking in medicine. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:888–90. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gustafson DH, Hawkins R, McTavish F, Pingree S, Chen WC, Volrathongchai K, Stengle W, Stewart JA, Serlin RC. Internet-based interactive support for cancer patients: are integrated systems better? J Commun. 2008;58:238–57. Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rains SA, Young V. A meta-analysis of research on formal computer-mediated support groups: examining group characteristics and health outcomes. Hum Commun Res. 2009;35:309–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aymé S, Kole A, Groft S. Empowerment of patients: lessons from the rare diseases community. Lancet. 2008;371(9629):2048–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weijer C. Our bodies, our science: challenging the breast cancer establishment, victims now ask for a voice in the war against disease. Sciences. 1995;35:41–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Statement of Scott Gottlieb, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs before the Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives. 2017. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  58. 58.
    The Joint Commission J. ‘What did the doctor say?’: improving health literacy to protect patient safety. Oakbrook: The Joint Commission. 2007. Accessed Aug 2011.
  59. 59.
    McCray AT. Promoting health literacy. J AHIMA. 2005;12:152–63. Scholar
  60. 60.
    Siefert M, Gerbner G, Fisher J. The information gap: how computers and other new communication technologies affect the social distribution of power. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Doctor RD. Social equity and information technologies: moving toward information democracy. In: Williams ME, editor. Annual review of information science and technology. Medford: Learned Information; 1992. p. 44–96.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fortner RS. Excommunication in the information society. Crit Stud Mass Commun. 1995;12:133–54. Scholar
  63. 63.
    Brubaker JR, Lustig C, Hayes GR. PatientsLikeMe: empowerment and representation in a patient-centered social network. Presented at the CSCW 2010 workshop on CSCW research in healthcare: past, present, and future. Savannah; 2007.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ferguson T. e-patients: how they can help us heal health care. 2007. Accessed Aug 2011.
  65. 65.
    Frost J, Massagli M. Social uses of personal health information within PatientsLikeMe, and online patient community: what can happen with patients have access to one another’s data. J Med Int Res. 2008;10(3):e15.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Steinhubl SR, Muse ED, Topol EJ. The emerging field of mobile health. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(283):283rv3. Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sacristán JA, Aguarón A, Avendaño-Solá C, et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:631–40. Scholar
  68. 68.
    Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(5):1033–41. Scholar
  69. 69.
    Epstein RM, Street RL. The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):100–3. Scholar
  70. 70.
    DHHS, Patient Outcomes Research Trust Fund. (2018). Last accessed June 29, 2018.
  71. 71.
    PCORI. About us, Our Mission. 2018. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  72. 72.
    PCORI. Fact sheet. 2018. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  73. 73.
  74. 74.
    PCORI Engagement Rubric (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) website. Published February 4, 2014. Updated June 6, 2016. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  75. 75.
    Crocker JC, Boylan AM, Bostock J, Locock L. Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2017;20(3):519–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Demian MN, Lam NN, Mac-Way F, Sapir-Pichhadze R, Fernandez N. Opportunities for engaging patients in kidney research. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2017;4:2054358117703070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Dudley L, Gamble C, Allam A, Bell P, Buck D, Goodare H, Hanley B, Preston J, Walker A, Williamson P, Young B. A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials. Trials. 2015;16(1):190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, Brito JP, Boehmer K, Hasan R, Firwana B, Erwin P. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    National Library of Medicine. What is direct-to-consumer genetic testing? 2018. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  80. 80.
    Society News. ASHG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the United States. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81:637. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  81. 81.
  82. 82.
    White House Archives. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  83. 83.
    National Library of Medicine. 2018. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  84. 84.
  85. 85.
    Pew Research Center. (February 5, 2018). Accessed 29 June 2018.
  86. 86.
    Li X, Dunn J, Salins D, et al. Digital health: tracking physiomes and activity using wearable biosensors reveals useful health-related information. In: Kirkwood T, editor. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(1):e2001402. Scholar
  87. 87.
    Nash EL, Gilroy D, Srikusalanukul W, Abhayaratna WP, Stanton T, Mitchell G, Stowasser M, Sharman JE. Facebook advertising for participant recruitment into a blood pressure clinical trial. J Hypertens. 2017;35(12):2527–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Carter-Harris L, Bartlett Ellis R, Warrick A, Rawl S. Beyond traditional newspaper advertisement: leveraging facebook-targeted advertisement to recruit long-term smokers for research. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6):e117. Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kayrouz R, Dear BF, Karin E, Titov N. Facebook as an effective recruitment strategy for mental health research of hard to reach populations. Internet Interv. 2016;4:1–0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Moorcraft SY, Marriott C, Peckitt C, Cunningham D, Chau I, Starling N, Watkins D, Rao S. Patients’ willingness to participate in clinical trials and their views on aspects of cancer research: results of a prospective patient survey. Trials. 2016;17(1):17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ryan A. Engaging consumers with musculoskeletal conditions in health research: a user-centred perspective. In: Integrating and connecting care: selected papers from the 25th Australian National Health Informatics Conference (HIC 2017), vol. 239. IOS Press; 2017. p. 104Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Zanni MV, Fitch K, Rivard C, Sanchez L, Douglas PS, Grinspoon S, Smeaton L, Currier JS, Looby SE. Follow YOUR heart: development of an evidence-based campaign empowering older women with HIV to participate in a large-scale cardiovascular disease prevention trial. HIV Clin Trials. 2017;18(2):83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010;95(1):10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Collins K, Boote J, Ardron D, Gath J, Green T, Ahmedzai SH. Making patient and public involvement in cancer and palliative research a reality: academic support is vital for success. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2014;5(2):203–6. Scholar
  95. 95.
    Chakradhar S. Many returns: call-ins and breakfasts hand back results to study volunteers. Nat Med. 2015;21:304–6. pmid:25849267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Buckley JM, Irving AD, Goodacre S. How do patients feel about taking part in clinical trials in emergency care? Emerg Med J. 2016;33(6):376–80. Scholar
  97. 97. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  98. 98.
    U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Blue button. Accessed at
  99. 99.
    Monegain B. Amazon, Apple only part of ‘seismic change’ coming to healthcare. Healthcare IT News; 2018. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  100. 100.
  101. 101.
    Johnson JD. Health-related information seeking: is it worth it? Inf Process Manag. 2014;50(5):708–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Wicks P, Vaughan T, Heywood J. Subjects no more: what happens when trial participants realize they hold the power? BMJ. 2014;348:g368. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • James E. Andrews
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. David Johnson
    • 2
  • Christina Eldredge
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information, College of Arts and SciencesUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of CommunicationUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations