Advertisement

The Convergence of Health Promotion and the Internet

  • M. Kay Cresci
  • Roger W. Morrell
  • Katharina V. Echt
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

Many consumers in today’s healthcare market take responsibility for promoting and/or maintaining their own health. This paradigm shift from a healthcare provider model of decision making to a partnership model of informed decision making (between the consumer and healthcare provider) is driven by the consumer’s access and use of the Internet as an interactive health communication resource. These telehealth information resources are designed to directly benefit health consumers and their families by promoting not only an increased awareness of diagnoses and treatments of diseases, but also the importance of good health practices. This chapter discusses who uses the Internet to seek health information and issues related to its access and use, and provides an overview of several projects that identify and/or address the issues of disparities and health literacy.

Keywords

Health Information Health Literacy Health Consumer Seek Health Information American Life Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adler R. The age wave meets the technology wave: broadband and older Americans. National Press Club Briefing, June 26, 2002, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cyber Dialogue. E-health consumers are set to transform the health care industry. http://www.cyberdialogue.com/news/releases/1999.html. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions: how Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2002. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=59. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calabretta N. Consumer-driven, patient centered health care in the age of electronic information. J Am Libr Assoc 2002; 90: 32–37.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. Department of Commerce. A nation online: how Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Economics and Statistics Administration and National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2002. http:// wwvv.ntia.doc.gov/opadhome/digitalnation/. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fox S, Rainie L. The online health care revolution: how the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2002. http:/ /www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=26 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morrell RW, Mayhorn CB, Bennett J. A survey of World Wide Web use in middle-aged and older adults. Human Factors 2000; 42: 175–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bard M. Cybercitizen health: evolution of the e-Health Consumer. Workshop presented to the National Institutes of Health, March 2002, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toledo SE, Napier M. Virtual health communities: a diabetes case study. SR Consultant Business Intelligence, 2002. http://www.sric-bi.com/BIP/DLSS/ DLS2272.shtml.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sittig D, Middleton B. Personalized health care record information on the Web, 1999. http://www.informatics-review.comlthoughts/personal.htm. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sittig D, King S, Hazlehurst BL. A survey of patient e-mail communications: what do patients think? Int J Med Informatics 2001; 45: 7–80.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moyer CA, Stern DT, Dobias KS, Katz SJ. Bridging the electronic divide: patient and provider perspectives on e-mail communication in primary care. Am J Managed Care 2002; 8: 427–433.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neill RA, Mainous AG 3rd, Clark JR, Hagen MD. The utility of electronic mail as a medium for patient-physician communication. Arch Fam Med 1994; 3: 268–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Couchman G, Forjuoh SN, Rascoe TO. E-mail communication in family practice what do patients expect? J Fam Pract 2001; 50: 414–418.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fox S. Search engines. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2002. http:// www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=64 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fox S, Rainie L. African Americans and the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2000. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=25 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Choy A, Hudson Z, Pritts J, Goldman J. 2001. Exposed online: why the new federal health privacy regulation doesn’t offer much protection to Internet users. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2001. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=49 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kane B, Sands D. Guidelines for clinical use of electronic mail with patients. JAMA 1998; 5: 104–110.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morrell RW. Older adults, health information, and the World Wide Web. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Institute on Aging. Older adults and information technology: a compendium of scientific research and Web site accessibility guidelines. Washington, DC: NIA, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Echt KV, Morrell RW, Park DC. Effects of age and training formats on basic computer skill acquisition in older adults. Educ Gerontol 1998; 24: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morrell RW, Park DC, Mayhorn CB, Kelley CL. The effects of age and instructional format on teaching older adults how to use ELDERCOMM: an electronic bulletin board system. Educ Gerontol 2000; 26: 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morrell RW. Older adults and the World Wide Web: are we ready for them? Paper presented at the International Conference on Technology and Aging, Toronto, Canada, September 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Administration on Aging. Profile of older Americans, 1999. http://www.aoa.gov/ aoa/stats/profile/default.htmGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marwick C. Cyberinformation for seniors. JAMA 1999; 218: 1474–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spooner T, Rainie L. Hispanics and the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2001. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=38. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization. Health literacy. Health Promotion Glossary, 1998. http://www.who.int/hpr/backgroundhp/glossary/glossary.pdf Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Davis CD, Fredrickson DD, Arnold C, Murphy PW, Herbst M, Bocchini JA. A polio immunization pamphlet with increased appeal and simplified language does not improve comprehension to an acceptable level. Patient Educ Counsel 1998; 33: 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Work Group on Literacy and Health. Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. J Fam Pract 1998; 46: 168–175.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs. Health literacy: report of the council of scientific affairs. JAMA 1999; 281: 55 2557.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    National Center for Educational Statistics. Literacy of older adults in America, 1996. http:l/nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97576.pdf Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Echt KV, Schuchard RA. Characterizing older adults with differing levels of health literacy. The 3rd National Rehabilitation Research and Development Conference: The New Challenges, Washington, DC, February 2002.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goldwein JW, Benjamin I. Internet-based medical information: time to take charge. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 152–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Food and Drug Administration. FDA warns consumers on dangerous products promoted on the Internet. FDA Talk Paper 197–26, June 17, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ScolnickA. WHO considers regulating ads, sale of medical products on the Internet. JAMA 1997; 278: 1723–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weisbord SD, Soule JB, Kimmel PL. Poison online: acute renal failure caused by oil of wormwood purchased on the Internet. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 825–827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bero L, Jadad AR. How consumers and policy makers can use systematic reviews for decision-making. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 37–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dailey SR. The interactive online AgePage learning project: results from usability testing. Paper presented at the 43rd annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Washington, DC, November 2000.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Morrell RW, Dailey SR. The NIHSeniorHealth.gov online learning project. Paper presented at the Second Biennial Conference: Older Adults, Health Information, and the World Wide Web, Bethesda, MD, February 2001.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morrell RW, Dailey SR. The process of applying scientific research findings in the construction of a Web site for older adults. Preconference workshop presented at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Association of America, Chicago, November 2001.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morrell RW, Dailey SR, Rousseau GK. Applying research: the NIHSeniorHealth.gov project. In: Schaie KW, Charness N, eds. The impact of technology on successful aging. New York: Springer, in press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morrell RW, Mayhorn CB, Bennett J. Older adults online in the Internet century. In: Morrell RW, ed. Older adults, health information, and the World Wide Web. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Echt KV. Designing web-based health information for older adults: visual considerations and design directives. In: Morrell RW, ed. Older adults, health information, and the World Wide Web. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002: 61–87.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Morrell RW. The application of cognitive theory in aging research. Cogn Technol 1997; 2: 44–47.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morrell RW, Echt KV. Designing instructions for computer use by older adults. In: Fisk AD, Rogers WA, eds. Handbook of human factors and the older adult. New York: Academic Press, 1997: 335–361.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    National Institute on Aging. Making your Web site senior friendly: a checklist. Washington, DC: NIA, 2002.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Boyette LW, Lloyd A, Manuel S, Boyette JE, Echt KV. Development of an exercise expert system for older adults. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001;38(1).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Echt KV, Kressig RW. The potential of interactive technology for health promotion with older adults. Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology and Aging, Toronto, 2001.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kressig RW, Echt KV. Exercise prescribing: computer application in older adults. Gerontologist 2002; 42 (2): 273–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kay Cresci
  • Roger W. Morrell
  • Katharina V. Echt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations