Next Article in Journal
Obligation Is Not a Compulsion—The Quality of the Law and the Effectiveness and Safety of Vaccination against COVID-19
Next Article in Special Issue
Health Professionals’ Experience with the First Implementation of the Organizational Health Literacy Self-Assessment Tool for Primary Care (OHL Self-AsseT)—A Qualitative Reflexive Thematic Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
A Functionalistic Stress Recovery Intervention Improves Perceived Recovery Opportunities and Relaxational Behaviors: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Special Issue
Do Health Information Sources Influence Health Literacy among Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Urban Areas of Western China
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Qualitative Research Studies Addressing Patient-Practitioner Communication about Online Health Information

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(21), 14004; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114004
by Cathrin Brøndbo Larsen 1,2,3,* and Heidi Gilstad 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(21), 14004; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114004
Submission received: 31 August 2022 / Revised: 12 October 2022 / Accepted: 26 October 2022 / Published: 27 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Literacy and Social Contexts)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This perspective paper presents a synthesis of published qualitative studies on patient-practitioner communications about online health information. Key topics have been identified from both patients and practitioners' perspectives. The paper is mostly well written and I have a few suggestions for the authors.

First, the sample size in the synthesis is quite limited (only 16 studies included). These studies are published only in English or Scandinavian languages. Therefore, any conclusions need to be carefully evaluated as they might be prone to sampling bias. 

In addition, patients with different health conditions may have different online health information seeking behavior. As the author noted, there are patients with chronic conditions, gynecologic issues, and parents. While this study is largely a descriptive study, I feel that it is still worthwhile to explore how different types of patients differ in their health information seeking and communication with practitioners.

Lastly, a table summarizing the included 16 studies is necessary (can be supplementary information).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1. 

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions for change. We appreciate your time. 

Please see the attachment with a point-by-point response to yours and the other reviewers feedback. The reviewed document together with an overview table will be given for the re-submission. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript above describes nicely a systemic approach  related to online health system. "The objective of this perspective paper was to get an overview of existing studies addressing how patients informed by online health information communicate about this with health care practitioners, and to identify the key topics raised in these studies".

A summarised  table or graph with the main fundings of all studies is missing from the manuscript. A relevant table or graph should be added to improve the presentation and flow of manuscript.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions for change. We appreciate your time. 

Please see the attachment with a point-by-point response to yours and the other reviewers feedback. The reviewed document together with an overview table will be given for the re-submission. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper focuses on the interplay between eHealth literacy and the social context. The authors are interested in how patients comprehend, appraise and communicate online health information, before and during the encounter with the healthcare professional.

The paper is clear and well structured however the content is repetitive in some parts. As an example, the aim of the paper is repeated many times throughout the paper.

The whole text should be revised removing concepts-repetition where it is not needed.

Discussion and Conclusions sections shall be improved. Only stating “the need of additional observational studies to better understand how practitioners and patients deal with online health information in their dialogues and therefore what occurs in medical interactions in various social contexts” is not enough.

The authors should provide the reader with additional elements that may guide researchers to fill the gap that doesn’t enable a complete understanding of the investigated topic,

Moreover, the investigation process should have considered a classification phase of the analysed papers based on different criteria e.g., country of the study, public of private healthcare system, age of the people involved in the study, year of the study.

Some additional revisions and suggestions follow:

-Line 121: the research questions guiding this paper are: …

-Fig.1. The reported flow chart may include specific information regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria and not only the numbers of the papers.

-Based on the reported information, 14 (12+2) papers are considered for patients’ perspective and 6 (4+2) for the GP’s one. Please revise the reported numbers on page 5 and 6.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3.

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions for change. We appreciate your time. 

Please see the attachment with a point-by-point response to yours and the other reviewers feedback. The reviewed document together with an overview table will be given for the re-submission. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop