Virtual Patient-Physician Relationship: How Do Women and Men Differ?
|
If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL). |
Abstract
Background: Many studies have shown that women use the Internet more often for health related information searching than men. Yet, the issue of whether and how females’ motivation to use the Internet for health related information searching differs from males’ motivation is under-researched. Related to this, we have limited knowledge of how the patient-physician relationship might be affected through females’ and males’ intended future Internet communication with the general practitioner (GP).
Objective: This study compares male and female patients with regard to 1) their judgement of the Internet for health related information searching and their digital literacy, 2) the different reasons for using the Internet for health related information searching at present and in the future, 3) their attitude toward Web 2.0 technologies, 4) their actual frequency of use of Internet communication with the GP and differences in future intention to do so, and 5) their health and nutrition consciousness.
Methods: The differences are tested by an empirical online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients. The sample was drawn from an e-panel maintained by GfK HealthCare. It was based on a randomly generated set of users, who had visited a general practitioner at least once in the three months prior to the beginning of the survey. Data were checked and missing values partially imputed with SPSS. 958 usable questionnaires were analysed. Differences between men (n=517) and women (n=441) were identified by using t-tests and X2–tests calculated with SPSS (version 20). The survey instrument was based on existing literature, extracts from the questionnaire used in the study have been added as multimedia appendices in two published JMIR papers.
Results: Men see themselves as being more digitally literate (t899,5=3.91, P<.001) than women, women on the other hand report a higher endurance of using the Internet privately for health related information (10 %-level, t571,6=-1.76, P=.079). When searching for health related information women report a higher frequency of usage of Internet search engines (10 %-level, Pearson Chi-Square=10.45, P=.063, Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square=3.82,1, P=.051), health fora and health blogs (Pearson Chi-square=7.99, P=.157, Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square =3.90, P=.048) than men. Women use the Internet for health related information for different reasons than men: they use it, because it is an easy way to make inquiries (t949,7=-2.59, P=.010), information is up to date (t952=-2.63, P=.009) and easy to understand (t952=-4.16, P<.001), because it offers different formats like social networks, podcasts or health fora (t876=-3.31, P=.001), it helps to save time (t941=-2.60, P=.009), it is an easy way to get in contact with other people (t909=-2.29, P=.026), usage is possible 24 hours a day 7 days a week (t950=-2.57, P=.010), the success of searching can be enhanced (t921=-2.24, P=.025), because of it’s fun to use (2 items, t940=-2.92, P=.004, t939=-2.69, P=.007). Women have a higher intention to use the Internet for health related information when they have access to it (t946,3=-2.47, P=.014) and they love to get to know new possibilities of searching (t946=-2.11, P=.035). Women have a more positive attitude to Web 2.0 than men (2 items, t891=-2.41, P=.016, t892=-2.62, P=.009). Women have a higher personal facet of information seeking behaviour (2 items, t947=-1.98, P=.048, t953=-2.01, p=.045). Women feel better informed when visiting their GP than men (10 %-level, t948=-1.93, P=.054). Last but not least, women have higher health consciousness and nutrition consciousness than men (3 items, t954,3=-3.64, P<.001, t955=-5.77, P<.001, t943=-4.51, P<.001) and prefer homeopathic remedies to a higher degree than men (t935=-8.73, P<.001p<.001). Women and men also differ in their future intention to use the Internet for communicating with their general practitioner (GP). Men report a higher willingness to use Internet communication with the GP (t905,3=4.15, P<.001) esp. for specific purposes (3 items, t841=2.13, P=.033, t943=2.45, P=.014, t944=2.45, P=.014). Men report a higher importance of online-treatment in the future (10%-level, t946=1.88, P=.060) and would be more willing to pay additionally for online treatment (t949=2.23, P=.026).
Conclusions: Results from this survey are mostly in line with previous studies demonstrating that women are more health conscious and more frequent users of the Internet for health related information. Additionally it could be shown that they have different motives for using the Internet and that men are more willing to replace personal communication with Internet communication with the GP and are also more willing to pay extra for that service. So, if a GP wants to reduce waiting times and operate more efficiently (e.g. through Internet communication for administrative purposes) men may be more easily convinced. However, if a GP plans a health conscious campaign, women may be more easily convinced. Theoretical foundations for the results can be derived from a range of concepts like the social cognitive agent perspective, social-role interpretations or from frameworks explaining gender differences in information processing.
Objective: This study compares male and female patients with regard to 1) their judgement of the Internet for health related information searching and their digital literacy, 2) the different reasons for using the Internet for health related information searching at present and in the future, 3) their attitude toward Web 2.0 technologies, 4) their actual frequency of use of Internet communication with the GP and differences in future intention to do so, and 5) their health and nutrition consciousness.
Methods: The differences are tested by an empirical online survey of 1006 randomly selected German patients. The sample was drawn from an e-panel maintained by GfK HealthCare. It was based on a randomly generated set of users, who had visited a general practitioner at least once in the three months prior to the beginning of the survey. Data were checked and missing values partially imputed with SPSS. 958 usable questionnaires were analysed. Differences between men (n=517) and women (n=441) were identified by using t-tests and X2–tests calculated with SPSS (version 20). The survey instrument was based on existing literature, extracts from the questionnaire used in the study have been added as multimedia appendices in two published JMIR papers.
Results: Men see themselves as being more digitally literate (t899,5=3.91, P<.001) than women, women on the other hand report a higher endurance of using the Internet privately for health related information (10 %-level, t571,6=-1.76, P=.079). When searching for health related information women report a higher frequency of usage of Internet search engines (10 %-level, Pearson Chi-Square=10.45, P=.063, Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square=3.82,1, P=.051), health fora and health blogs (Pearson Chi-square=7.99, P=.157, Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square =3.90, P=.048) than men. Women use the Internet for health related information for different reasons than men: they use it, because it is an easy way to make inquiries (t949,7=-2.59, P=.010), information is up to date (t952=-2.63, P=.009) and easy to understand (t952=-4.16, P<.001), because it offers different formats like social networks, podcasts or health fora (t876=-3.31, P=.001), it helps to save time (t941=-2.60, P=.009), it is an easy way to get in contact with other people (t909=-2.29, P=.026), usage is possible 24 hours a day 7 days a week (t950=-2.57, P=.010), the success of searching can be enhanced (t921=-2.24, P=.025), because of it’s fun to use (2 items, t940=-2.92, P=.004, t939=-2.69, P=.007). Women have a higher intention to use the Internet for health related information when they have access to it (t946,3=-2.47, P=.014) and they love to get to know new possibilities of searching (t946=-2.11, P=.035). Women have a more positive attitude to Web 2.0 than men (2 items, t891=-2.41, P=.016, t892=-2.62, P=.009). Women have a higher personal facet of information seeking behaviour (2 items, t947=-1.98, P=.048, t953=-2.01, p=.045). Women feel better informed when visiting their GP than men (10 %-level, t948=-1.93, P=.054). Last but not least, women have higher health consciousness and nutrition consciousness than men (3 items, t954,3=-3.64, P<.001, t955=-5.77, P<.001, t943=-4.51, P<.001) and prefer homeopathic remedies to a higher degree than men (t935=-8.73, P<.001p<.001). Women and men also differ in their future intention to use the Internet for communicating with their general practitioner (GP). Men report a higher willingness to use Internet communication with the GP (t905,3=4.15, P<.001) esp. for specific purposes (3 items, t841=2.13, P=.033, t943=2.45, P=.014, t944=2.45, P=.014). Men report a higher importance of online-treatment in the future (10%-level, t946=1.88, P=.060) and would be more willing to pay additionally for online treatment (t949=2.23, P=.026).
Conclusions: Results from this survey are mostly in line with previous studies demonstrating that women are more health conscious and more frequent users of the Internet for health related information. Additionally it could be shown that they have different motives for using the Internet and that men are more willing to replace personal communication with Internet communication with the GP and are also more willing to pay extra for that service. So, if a GP wants to reduce waiting times and operate more efficiently (e.g. through Internet communication for administrative purposes) men may be more easily convinced. However, if a GP plans a health conscious campaign, women may be more easily convinced. Theoretical foundations for the results can be derived from a range of concepts like the social cognitive agent perspective, social-role interpretations or from frameworks explaining gender differences in information processing.
Medicine 2.0® is happy to support and promote other conferences and workshops in this area. Contact us to produce, disseminate and promote your conference or workshop under this label and in this event series. In addition, we are always looking for hosts of future World Congresses. Medicine 2.0® is a registered trademark of JMIR Publications Inc., the leading academic ehealth publisher.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.