Unraveling Uses and Effects of an Interactive Health Communication System

By developing a number of measures distinguishing amount, type of content, and when and how that content is used, the current study revealed effective patterns of use that are associated with quality of life benefits during an eHealth intervention. Results generally suggest that the benefits depend on how a patient uses the system, far more than on sheer amount of exposure or even what type of content is chosen. The next generation of eHealth system should focus on providing new and varying content over time, but even more on encouraging intensity of use and long-term commitment to the system.

[1]  J. Preece,et al.  Experiencing Empathy Online , 2001 .

[2]  Jack Linchuan Qiu,et al.  Internet Connectedness and Inequality , 2001, Commun. Res..

[3]  Robert P. Hawkins,et al.  UNIFORM MESSAGES AND HABITUAL VIEWING: UNNECESSARY ASSUMPTIONS IN SOCIAL REALITY EFFECTS , 1981 .

[4]  E. Katz,et al.  Uses and Gratifications Research , 2019, The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies.

[5]  Fay Sudweeks,et al.  Networked Interactivity , 1997, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[6]  Ron Tamborini,et al.  Television Exposure and the Public's Perceptions of Physicians , 2003 .

[7]  D H Gustafson,et al.  The quality of interactive computer use among HIV-infected individuals. , 1998, Journal of health communication.

[8]  Carolyn A. Lin.  Modeling the Gratification‐Seeking Process of Television Viewing , 1993 .

[9]  Robert P. Hawkins,et al.  Will the disadvantaged ride the information highway? Hopeful answers from a computer‐based health crisis system , 1996 .

[10]  Suzanne Pingree,et al.  Effects of Insightful Disclosure Within Computer Mediated Support Groups on Women With Breast Cancer , 2006, Health communication.

[11]  R. Gray,et al.  A qualitative study of breast cancer self‐help groups , 1997, Psycho-oncology.

[12]  D S Tulsky,et al.  Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. , 1997, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  M. Gatz,et al.  Age Differences in Information-Seeking among Cancer Patients , 1997, International journal of aging & human development.

[14]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  The internet and health communication : experience and expectations , 2001 .

[15]  Martin Kurth,et al.  The limits and limitations of transaction log analysis , 1993 .

[16]  A. Rubin.  Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations , 1983 .

[17]  T. Deshields,et al.  Ending treatment: the course of emotional adjustment and quality of life among breast cancer survivors immediately following radiation therapy , 2005, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[18]  G. Salomon,et al.  On the Meaning and Validity of Television Viewing. , 1978 .

[19]  Suzanne Pingree,et al.  Cultural Differences in Use of an Electronic Discussion Group , 2003, Journal of health psychology.

[20]  Carolyn A. Lin.  Predicting Satellite Radio Adoption via Listening Motives, Activity, and Format Preference , 2006 .

[21]  W. Potter,et al.  Television Exposure Measures and the Cultivation Hypothesis. , 1990 .

[22]  S. Rafaeli,et al.  Why Communication Researchers Should Study the Internet: A Dialogue , 1996, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[23]  Descriptors Higher.  Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association , 1974 .

[24]  J. Pennebaker.  Writing About Emotional Experiences as a Therapeutic Process , 1997 .

[25]  D. Gustafson,et al.  Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer , 2001, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[26]  Robert P. Hawkins,et al.  Aiding Those Facing Health Crises: The Experience of the CHESS Project: Theoretical Applications and Future Directions , 1997 .

[27]  Thomas J. Johnson,et al.  Measure for Measure: The Relationship Between Different Broadcast Types, Formats, Measures and Political Behaviors and Cognitions , 2000 .

[28]  David B Buller,et al.  Attributes of Interactive Online Health Information Systems , 2005, Journal of medical Internet research.

[29]  Jeong Yeob Han,et al.  How women with breast cancer learn using interactive cancer communication systems. , 2006, Health education research.

[30]  Robert P. Hawkins,et al.  CHESS: 10 years of research and development in consumer health informatics for broad populations, including the underserved , 2002, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[31]  Bret R. Shaw,et al.  Experiences of Women with Breast Cancer: Exchanging Social Support over the CHESS Computer Network , 2000, Journal of health communication.

[32]  John E. Newhagen,et al.  Why Communication Researchers Should Study the Internet: A Dialogue , 1996, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[33]  J. Fetting.  Psychosocial aspects of breast cancer , 1990, Current opinion in oncology.

[34]  Christine Siegel,et al.  Implementing a Research-Based Model of Cooperative Learning , 2005 .

[35]  Bret R. Shaw,et al.  Use and Impact of eHealth System by Low-income Women With Breast Cancer , 2005, Journal of health communication.

[36]  Richard L. Street,et al.  Health promotion and interactive technology : theoretical applications and future directions , 1997 .

[37]  David Nicholas,et al.  Micro-Mining and Segmented Log File Analysis: A Method for Enriching the Data Yield from Internet Log Files , 2003, J. Inf. Sci..

[38]  D. Gustafson,et al.  Impact of a patient-centered, computer-based health information/support system. , 1999, American journal of preventive medicine.

[39]  J. Blumler.  The Role of Theory in Uses and Gratifications Studies , 1979 .

[40]  L. Gross,et al.  Growing Up with Television: Cultivation Processes , 2002 .

[41]  Gary L. Kreps,et al.  The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): Development, Design, and Dissemination , 2004, Journal of health communication.

[42]  Rod Sims,et al.  Interactivity: A Forgotten Art? , 1997 .