The Gynecologists and obstetricians and internet

Authors

  • Maria Luiza Toledo Leite Ferreira da Rocha Universidade de São Paulo; Faculdade de Saúde Pública; Departamento de Saúde Materno Infantil
  • Ana Cristina d'Andretta Tanaka Universidade de São Paulo; Faculdade de Saúde Pública; Departamento de Saúde Materno Infantil

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19929

Keywords:

internet, gynecology, obstetrics, physician-patient relationship, information, communication

Abstract

PURPOSE: to identify the influence of the use of internet on medical practice and verify all changes about its use among gynecologists and obstetricians. METHODS: a postal questionnaire was sent to 1.120 gynecologists and obstetricians of São Paulo city, 152 of which were returned, which represents a return rate of 13.6% and 6.1% of all the professionals of SOGESP. The quantitative analysis of the doctors' behavior related to the use of the internet has been made by calculation of averages, proportions, standard deviations and the chi-squared test. Four different groups have been determined by Cluster Analysis depending on the way this technology is used. RESULTS: there was no relationship between age, sex and development of only Gynecology or Obstetrics related to use of internet. PhDs tend to use internet more. Wuth respect to the offning of medical services, receiving and sending exams through e-mail was the most common activity realized by the physicians. CONCLUSIONS: the gynecologists and obstetricians investigated in this research project use internet in their medical practice, for the updating of data collection, for communication with patients or offning their medical services by the Web. Although its use has been improved doctors are afraid of possible negative consequences regarding the physician-patient relationship and legal, economic and ethical consequences that this use may bring to clinical practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Blum JD. Internet medicine and the evolving legal status of the physician-patient relationship. J Leg Med. 2003;24:413-55.

Sciamanna CN, Rogers ML, Shenassa ED, Houston TK. Patient access to US physicians who conduct internet or e-mail consults. J Gen Int Med. 2007; 22(3):378-81.

Stone JH. Communication between physicians and patients in the era of E-medicine. Vasculitis Center and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA: N Engl J Med. 2007;356(24):2451-4.

Berquó ES, Souza JMP, Gotlieb SLD. Bioestatística. São Paulo: EPU; 1980;325p.tabs.

Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS. Statistical methods in medical research.4,. ed. Blackwell Science Ltd. UK, 2002;817 p. ilus.

Usher WT.Gold Coast general practitioners’ recommendations of health websites to their patients. Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. Med J Aust. 2007;187(2):82-3.

Johnson PT, Eng J, Rowell MR, Fishman EK. Evolving physician perception of world wide web education: 2007 update and review of the literature. Acad Radiol. 2007 Sep;14(9):1092-101.

Martin S. Younger physicians, specialists use internet more. Can Med Assoc J. 2004; 170(12):1780.

Lowrey W, Anderson WB. The impact of Internet use on the public perception of physicians: A perspective from the sociology of professions literature. Health Commun. 2006; 19(2):125-31.

Cuenca AMB. O uso da internet por docentes da área de Saúde Pública no Brasil. [tese de doutorado]. São Paulo: Faculdade de Saúde Pública da USP;2004; 124p.

Martinez AR, Vegas AA, de Cordoba JLDLF. Internet physician’s offices: main reasons for consultation and differences with Primary Care. Rev ClinEsp.2004; 204:198-201.

Umefjord G, Hamberg K, Malker H, Petersson G. The use of an Internet-based Ask the Doctor Service involving family physicians: evaluation by a webs urvey. Fam Pract. 2006; 23 (2):159-66.

Diaz JA, Sciamanna CN, Evangelou E, Stamp MJ, Ferguson T. Brief Report: what types of internet guidance do patients want from their physicians? J Gen Int Med. 2005; 20(8):683-85.

Biermann JS, Golladay GJ, Peterson RN. Using the Internet to enhance physician-patient communication. J Am Acad Ortho Surg. 2006; 14(3):136-44.

Bylund CL, Gueguen JA. Physician-patient conversations about internet cancer information. Psycho-Oncol. 2006; 15:189 Suppl.

Lineberry TW, Bostwick JM. Taking the physician out of “physician shopping”: a case series of clinical problems associated with internet purchases of medication. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79(8):1031-34.

Brown MS. Physicians on the internet: ambivalence and resistence about to give way to acceptance. Med Net. 1998; 4:19-21.

Carvalho Júnior FF. A Internet e o pediatra. Rev. Paul. Pediatr. 1999;17(3):150-53.

Huñis AP. Médicos e Internet. Inform Med. 2000; 7:41-2.

CREMESP – Conselho Regional de Medicina do Estado de São Paulo. Resolução 97 de 20 de Fevereiro de2001. São Paulo, 2001 [acesso em 28 de junho de 2007]. Disponível em http://www.bioetica.org.br/legislacao/res_par/integra/97_01.php

Downloads

Published

2009-12-01

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 3 (2009)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis