Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of jopHomeThis ArticleASCO JOPSearchSubmitASCO JOP Homepage
J Oncol Pract. 2007 May; 3(3): 167–171.
PMCID: PMC2793800

The Roles of Patients' Internet Use for Cancer Information and Socioeconomic Status in Oncologist-Patient Communication

The majority of US adults are Internet users, and they increasingly search for online health information, particularly regarding specific diseases.1 Many seek cancer treatment and clinical trial information.2,3 Although few studies have evaluated patients' Internet use for health information,2 critics debate its influence on the physician-patient relationship and health care disparities.

Increasingly, patients broach online information in physician-patient interactions, sometimes directly confronting physicians with such information. That said, access to basic additional information may empower patients in physician-patient interactions.4 Observers agree that patients' Internet use encourages active patient communication,5 although they continue to debate the pros and cons of the practice.4,6 Table 1 summarizes those arguments.

Table 1.
The Debate: Pros and Cons Regarding the Impact of Patients' Internet Use on Health Care

Contending that the Internet is “inherently democratic”7 implies that simply making more health information available online will reduce health care disparities.8,9 However, evidence of a digital divide based on socioeconomic status (SES)10,11 raises concerns that differential access to online health information may widen the knowledge gap and, thereby, exacerbate health care disparities, because those in greatest need (eg, with a preventable disease yet no insurance) are least likely to have Internet access.12

Little research has investigated the impact of patients' Internet use on the physician-patient relationship and health care disparities; instead, it has been limited to patients' or physicians' perceptions rather than actual behavior.13 A nationally representative patient sample rated the use of online health information as having positive effects on the physician-patient relationship.13 However, a survey of primary care patients found no relationship between interest in health-related Internet use and patients' perceptions of physician-provided information and patient involvement in decision-making.14 Results of physician surveys are equally unclear.15,16

Even less is known about these issues in oncology settings. Regardless of Internet use,10 patients with cancer report receiving insufficient information about their disease, want more information,17,18 and want to participate actively in medical care. Oncology patients who use the Internet are more likely than oncologists to perceive that such use improves their relationship.19,20 However, we found no previous research that directly observed effects of oncology patients' Internet use on actual physician-patient communication.

With regard to SES, patients with cancer generally mirror Internet health information users: younger, wealthier, and better-educated patients are more likely to seek Internet-based cancer information.20,21 A survey of economically disadvantaged patients with cancer at an urban county hospital found no association between income and Internet use; however, it relied on an imprecise proxy for patient income (median income by zip code).2

We conducted a study and collected data at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center (Tampa, Florida) and the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (Detroit, Michigan). In our study of 123 patients visiting these two National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, Maryland) -designated comprehensive cancer centers, significant differences were found between those who sought cancer information from the Internet and those who did not. SES was estimated by multiplying the level of education (from 1 [= no formal education] to 11 [= completed graduate degree]) by the response to the income question (from 1 [< $10,000] to [6 > $100,000]). Internet users were younger, better educated, had higher income, and thus had higher SES (Table 3). Internet use also was positively associated with using other cancer information sources (Table 4).

Table 3.
Demographic Characteristics of Total Sample, Internet Never-Users, Sometimes-Users, and Everyday Users
Table 4.
Factor Loadings for Cancer Information Sources

Patients' Internet use for cancer information also was positively associated with specialized knowledge, physician-patient connectedness/closeness, and likelihood of patients using technical language (Tables 2 and and5).5). However, after we controlled for SES, these relationships were no longer statistically significant. That is, initial significant correlations between Internet use and knowledge and communication variables masked the impact of SES on Internet use.

Table 2.
Karmanos Accrual Analysis System: Physician-Patient Relationship Global Ratings
Table 5.
Relationships Between Internet Use for Cancer Information and Specialized Knowledge and Physician-Patient Communication Dimensions

The Internet As Prescription for Health Disparities: Missing the Mark?

One federal government strategy to improve health care and reduce health disparities is to increase household Internet access and access to credible online cancer information sources (e-mail, LiveHelp, and,22,23 Findings from the above-mentioned study suggest this strategy may miss the mark. First, 43% of patients we studied had never used the Internet to locate cancer information. Thus, even among patients at premier cancer treatment venues, Internet use for cancer information is hardly the norm. Worse, when the cancer patient population is disproportionately older and/or of minority status (both factors associated with SES), they are less likely to use the Internet and, according to previous research, more likely to use one-way or noninteractive information sources (eg, mass media entertainment sources, often with unrealistic portrayals) that disallow tailoring to meet individuals' information needs.24 Second, access to online cancer information assumes general and health literacy, the ability to evaluate Web site and information credibility, and Internet search and navigational skills,6 factors also likely associated with SES. Thus, simply increasing physical “access” to the Internet does not ensure patients' capabilities to locate and understand credible cancer information needed to empower them in interactions with oncologists.

Internet Use As a Stand-in for Literacy and More Informed Networks?

Because patients' cancer information Internet use was associated with using other cancer information sources, one might surmise that Internet users are simply higher information seekers than nonusers.25 Two pieces of evidence indicate otherwise. First, the factor analysis suggested that Internet use was associated more with using interpersonal than electronic information sources. Second, across all variables studied, Internet use correlated most highly with SES and use of newspapers, books, and personal networking. Thus, a reasonable explanation of relationships between Internet use and other information-source use rests on SES. Higher SES individuals are not only better educated and better off financially, but also more literate and, thus, better able to readily access print-based media (eg, the Internet for health information purposes). They are also more likely to encounter better-educated and better-informed people in their personal networks than are nonusers and may be more likely to have a highly trained health professional in their personal networks who can talk knowledgeably with them about cancer.

Carrying the Internet into Health Care

The initial study results suggested some effects of Internet use on oncologist-patient communication. Internet use was positively associated with physician-patient connectedness/closeness and patient use of technical language (factors that suggest greater patient participation) and with knowledge about science. However, when we controlled for SES, these relationships were no longer significant. Thus, our results suggest that SES, rather than empowerment from online cancer information, drives both patients' level of specialized knowledge and relational aspects of physician-patient communication.

In conclusion, simply increasing Internet access is unlikely to reduce disparities in health care and in health care interactions that contribute to disparities.8 Internet use, along with other factors comprising social class (ie, education and income), may simply multiply advantages for some patients during medical interactions. The challenge is for researchers to identify, and physicians to use, communication strategies to address the corresponding disadvantages to which the Internet contributes to reduce health care disparities.

The primary clinical implication of our findings is that physician-patient interaction may differ as a function of patient SES rather than Internet use. Patients' failure to seek online information, potentially interpreted by physicians as lack of interest or desire for information, may actually reflect the patients' socioeconomic status and related health disparities rather than a lack of interest. To help reduce these disparities, physicians can foster patient participation directly by encouraging them to ask questions and discuss concerns, and indirectly, by asking patients about their information interests and accessible sources. They also can match patients' information needs and preferences to resources (ie, answer questions, provide print information at an appropriate reading level, and identify credible cancer information Web sites).


Some of this work was presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York, New York, in May 2005. This paper was prepared as part of a larger investigation funded by a Grant No. NCI R01 CA75003 (T.L.A.) from the National Cancer Institute, “Effects of Physician Communication on Patient Accrual.”


1. Madden M: America's online pursuits: The changing picture of who's online and what they do.
2. Helft PR, Eckles RE, Johnson-Calley CS, et al: Use of the Internet to obtain cancer information among cancer patients at an urban county hospital. J Clin Oncol 22:4954-4962, 2005. [PubMed]
3. Eysenbach G: The impact of the Internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 53:356-371, 2003. [PubMed]
4. Robinson TN, Patrick K, Eng TR, et al: An evidence-based approach to interactive health communication: A challenge to medicine in the information age. JAMA 280:1264-1269, 1998. [PubMed]
5. Calabretta N: Consumer-driven, patient-centered health care in the age of electronic information. J Am Libr Assoc 90:32-37, 2002 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Cline RJW, Haynes KM: Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: The state of the art. Health Educ Res 16:671-692, 2001. [PubMed]
7. Wootton JC: The quality of information on women's health on the Internet. J Womens Health 6:575-581, 1997. [PubMed]
8. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Health Communication: Healthy People 2010, 25 ed 2, Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000, 2
9. Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care in Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR (eds.).Washington, DC, The National Academies Press, 2003
10. Lenhart A, Horrigan J, Rainie L, et al: The ever-shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide,, Washington, DC, Pew Internet & American Life Project
11. Rainie L, Packel D: More online, doing more: 16 million newcomers gain access in the last half of 2000 as women, minorities, and families with modest incomes continue to surge online: Internet tracking report,, Washington, DC, Pew Internet & American Life Project
12. Eng TR, Maxfield A, Patrick K, et al: Access to health information and support: A public highway or a private road? JAMA 280:1371-1375, 1998. [PubMed]
13. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al: The impact of health information on the Internet on the physician-patient relationship: Patient perceptions. Arch Intern Med 163:1727-1734, 2003. [PubMed]
14. Sciamanna CN, Clark MA, Diaz JA, et al: Filling the gaps in physician communication: The role of the Internet among primary care patients. Int J Med Inf 72:1-8, 2003 [PubMed]
15. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al: The impact of health information on the Internet on the physician-patient relationship: National US survey among 1,050 US physicians. J Med Internet Res 5:e17, 2003. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Hollander S, Lanier D: The physician-patient relationship in an electronic environment: A regional snapshot. Bull Med Libr Assoc 89:397-399, 2001. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Jefford M, Tattersall MH: Informing and involving patients in their own care. Lancet Oncol 3:629-637, 2002. [PubMed]
18. Laine C, Davidoff F: Patient-centered medicine: A professional evolution. JAMA 275:152-156, 1996. [PubMed]
19. Chen X, Siu LL: Impact of the media and the Internet on oncology: Survey of cancer patients and oncologists in Canada. J Clin Oncol 19:4291-4297, 2001. [PubMed]
20. Brotherton JM, Clarke SJ, Quine S: Use of the Internet by oncology patients: Its effect on the doctor-patient relationship. Med J Aust 117:395, 2002. (letter) [PubMed]
21. Fogel J, Albert SM, Schnabel F: Use of the Internet by women with breast cancer. J Med Internet Res 4:E-9, 2003 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health: Wired for Health and Well-Being: the Emergence of Interactive Health Communication in Eng TR Gustafson DH (eds.).Washington, DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Government Printing Office. April, 1999
23. Department of Health and Human Services: Exploring grants for increasing utilization of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (R21). Request for Applications (RFA) Number: RFA-CA-06-15, February 1, 2006
24. Johnson JD: Cancer-Related Information Seeking. Cresskill, NJ, Hampton Press, 1997
25. Henwood F, Wyatt W, Miller N, et al: Technology and In/Equality: Questioning the Information Society, Critical perspectives on technologies, in/equalities and the information society in Wyatt S, Henwood F, Miller N, Senker P (eds.).London, United Kingdom, Routledge, 2000, 1-18

Articles from Journal of Oncology Practice are provided here courtesy of American Society of Clinical Oncology