<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
	<channel>
				<title>Top 10 Most Cited in Scopus JMIR Articles(All Time)</title>
		<link>http://www.jmir.org/stats/feed</link>
		<description />
		                

	                                <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Top10CScopus" /><feedburner:info uri="top10cscopus" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
                    <title>The Law of Attrition</title>
                    <description>In an ongoing effort of this Journal to develop and further the theories, models, and best practices around eHealth research, this paper argues for the need for a &amp;#8220;science of attrition&amp;#8221;, that is, a need to develop models for discontinuation of eHealth applications and the related phenomenon of participants dropping out of eHealth trials. What I call &amp;#8220;law of attrition&amp;#8221; here is the observation that in any eHealth trial a substantial proportion of users drop out before completion or stop using the appplication. This feature of eHealth trials is a distinct characteristic compared to, for example, drug trials. The traditional clinical trial and evidence-based medicine paradigm stipulates that high dropout rates make trials less believable. Consequently eHealth researchers tend to gloss over high dropout rates, or not to publish their study results at all, as they see their studies as failures. However, for many eHealth trials, in particular those conducted on the Internet and in particular with self-help applications, high dropout rates may be a natural and typical feature. Usage metrics and determinants of attrition should be highlighted, measured, analyzed, and discussed. This also includes analyzing and reporting the characteristics of the subpopulation for which the application eventually &amp;#8220;works&amp;#8221;, ie, those who stay in the trial and use it. For the question of what works and what does not, such attrition measures are as important to report as pure efficacy measures from intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. In cases of high dropout rates efficacy measures underestimate the impact of an application on a population which continues to use it. Methods of analyzing attrition curves can be drawn from survival analysis methods, eg, the Kaplan-Meier analysis and proportional hazards regression analysis (Cox model). Measures to be reported include the relative risk of dropping out or of stopping the use of an application, as well as a &amp;#8220;usage half-life&amp;#8221;, and models reporting demographic and other factors predicting usage discontinuation in a population. Differential dropout or usage rates between two interventions could be a standard metric for the &amp;#8220;usability efficacy&amp;#8221; of a system. A &amp;#8220;run-in and withdrawal&amp;#8221; trial design is suggested as a methodological innovation for Internet-based trials with a high number of initial dropouts/nonusers and a stable group of hardcore users.

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 198&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/bAjQbAL7k8k" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/bAjQbAL7k8k/</link>
                    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e11/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e11/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>The Effectiveness of Web-Based vs. Non-Web-Based Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Behavioral Change Outcomes</title>
                    <description>BACKGROUND: A primary focus of self-care interventions for chronic illness is the encouragement of an individual's behavior change necessitating knowledge sharing, education, and understanding of the condition. The use of the Internet to deliver Web-based interventions to patients is increasing rapidly. In a 7-year period (1996 to 2003), there was a 12-fold increase in MEDLINE citations for &amp;#8220;Web-based therapies.&amp;#8221; The use and effectiveness of Web-based interventions to encourage an individual's change in behavior compared to non-Web-based interventions have not been substantially reviewed.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis was undertaken to provide further information on patient/client knowledge and behavioral change outcomes after Web-based interventions as compared to outcomes seen after implementation of non-Web-based interventions.

METHODS: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, ERIC, and PSYCHInfo databases were searched for relevant citations between the years 1996 and 2003. Identified articles were retrieved, reviewed, and assessed according to established criteria for quality and inclusion/exclusion in the study. Twenty-two articles were deemed appropriate for the study and selected for analysis. Effect sizes were calculated to ascertain a standardized difference between the intervention (Web-based) and control (non-Web-based) groups by applying the appropriate meta-analytic technique. Homogeneity analysis, forest plot review, and sensitivity analyses were performed to ascertain the comparability of the studies.

RESULTS: Aggregation of participant data revealed a total of 11,754 participants (5,841 women and 5,729 men). The average age of participants was 41.5 years. In those studies reporting attrition rates, the average drop out rate was 21% for both the intervention and control groups. For the five Web-based studies that reported usage statistics, time spent/session/person ranged from 4.5 to 45 minutes. Session logons/person/week ranged from 2.6 logons/person over 32 weeks to 1008 logons/person over 36 weeks. The intervention designs included one-time Web-participant health outcome studies compared to non-Web participant health outcomes, self-paced interventions, and longitudinal, repeated measure intervention studies. Longitudinal studies ranged from 3 weeks to 78 weeks in duration. The effect sizes for the studied outcomes ranged from -.01 to .75. Broad variability in the focus of the studied outcomes precluded the calculation of an overall effect size for the compared outcome variables in the Web-based compared to the non-Web-based interventions. Homogeneity statistic estimation also revealed widely differing study parameters (Qw16 = 49.993, P &amp;#8804; .001). There was no significant difference between study length and effect size. Sixteen of the 17 studied effect outcomes revealed improved knowledge and/or improved behavioral outcomes for participants using the Web-based interventions. Five studies provided group information to compare the validity of Web-based vs. non-Web-based instruments using one-time cross-sectional studies. These studies revealed effect sizes ranging from -.25 to +.29. Homogeneity statistic estimation again revealed widely differing study parameters (Qw4 = 18.238, P &amp;#8804; .001).

CONCLUSIONS: The effect size comparisons in the use of Web-based interventions compared to non-Web-based interventions showed an improvement in outcomes for individuals using Web-based interventions to achieve the specified knowledge and/or behavior change for the studied outcome variables. These outcomes included increased exercise time, increased knowledge of nutritional status, increased knowledge of asthma treatment, increased participation in healthcare, slower health decline, improved body shape perception, and 18-month weight loss maintenance.

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 192&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/gwSbACWmgrI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/gwSbACWmgrI/</link>
                    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2004/4/e40/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2004/4/e40/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Internet Versus Mailed Questionnaires: A Randomized Comparison</title>
                    <description>BACKGROUND:  The use of Internet-based questionnaires for collection of data to evaluate patient education and other interventions has increased in recent years. Many self-report instruments have been validated using paper-and-pencil versions, but we cannot assume that the psychometric properties of an Internet-based version will be identical.

OBJECTIVES:  To look at similarities and differences between the Internet versions and the paper-and-pencil versions of 16 existing self-report instruments useful in evaluation of patient interventions.

METHODS:  Participants were recruited via the Internet and volunteered to participate (N=397), after which they were randomly assigned to fill out questionnaires online or via mailed paper-and-pencil versions. The self-report instruments measured were overall health, health distress, practice mental stress management, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability, illness intrusiveness, activity limitations, visual numeric for pain, visual numeric for shortness of breath, visual numeric for fatigue, self-efficacy for managing disease, aerobic exercise, stretching and strengthening exercise, visits to MD, hospitalizations, hospital days, and emergency room visits. Means, ranges, and confidence intervals are given for each instrument within each type of questionnaire. The results from the two questionnaires were compared using both parametric and non-parametric tests. Reliability tests were given for multi-item instruments. A separate sample (N=30) filled out identical questionnaires over the Internet within a few days and correlations were used to assess test-retest reliability.

RESULTS:  Out of 16 instruments, none showed significant differences when the appropriate tests were used. Construct reliability was similar within each type of questionnaire, and Internet test-retest reliability was high. Internet questionnaires required less follow-up to achieve a slightly (non-significant) higher completion rate compared to mailed questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS:  Among a convenience sample recruited via the Internet, results from those randomly assigned to Internet participation were at least as good as, if not better than, among those assigned mailed questionnaires, with less recruitment effort required. The instruments administered via the Internet appear to be reliable, and to be answered similarly to the way they are answered when they are administered via traditional mailed paper questionnaires.

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 158&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/tfaMiB5P7mk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/tfaMiB5P7mk/</link>
                    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2004/3/e29/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2004/3/e29/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Medicine 2.0: Social Networking, Collaboration, Participation, Apomediation, and Openness</title>
                    <description>In a very significant development for eHealth, a broad adoption of Web 2.0 technologies and approaches coincides with the more recent emergence of Personal Health Application Platforms and Personally Controlled Health Records such as Google Health, Microsoft HealthVault, and Dossia. “Medicine 2.0” applications, services and tools are defined as Web-based services for health care consumers, caregivers, patients, health professionals, and biomedical researchers, that use Web 2.0 technologies and/or semantic web and virtual reality approaches to enable and facilitate specifically 1) social networking, 2) participation, 3) apomediation, 4) openness and 5) collaboration, within and between these user groups. The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) publishes a Medicine 2.0 theme issue and sponsors a conference on “How Social Networking and Web 2.0 changes Health, Health Care, Medicine and Biomedical Research”, to stimulate and encourage research in these five areas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 140&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/Z8n9nDKMzz4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/Z8n9nDKMzz4/</link>
                    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:23:14 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2008/3/e22/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2008/3/e22/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Using the Internet for Surveys and Health Research</title>
                    <description>No Abstract Available&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 138&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/EdBiPeMHnoI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/EdBiPeMHnoI/</link>
                    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2002/2/e13/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2002/2/e13/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>What is e-health?</title>
                    <description>No Abstract Available&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 121&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/604LYd4GoCk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/604LYd4GoCk/</link>
                    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2001/2/e20/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2001/2/e20/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Overcoming Depression on the Internet (ODIN) (2): A Randomized Trial of a Self-Help Depression Skills Program With Reminders</title>
                    <description>BACKGROUND: Guided self-help programs for depression (with associated therapist contact) have been successfully delivered over the Internet. However, previous trials of pure self-help Internet programs for depression (without therapist contact), including an earlier trial conducted by us, have failed to yield positive results. We hypothesized that methods to increase participant usage of the intervention, such as postcard or telephone reminders, might result in significant effects on depression.

OBJECTIVES: This paper presents a second randomized trial of a pure self-help Internet site, ODIN (Overcoming Depression on the InterNet), for adults with self-reported depression. We hypothesized that frequently reminded participants receiving the Internet program would report greater reduction in depression symptoms and greater improvements in mental and physical health functioning than a comparison group with usual treatment and no access to ODIN.

METHODS: This was a three-arm randomized control trial with a usual treatment control group and two ODIN intervention groups receiving reminders through postcards or brief telephone calls. The setting was a nonprofit health maintenance organization (HMO). We mailed recruitment brochures by US post to two groups: adults (n = 6030) who received depression medication or psychotherapy in the previous 30 days, and an age- and gender-matched group of adults (n = 6021) who did not receive such services. At enrollment and at 5-, 10- and 16-weeks follow-up, participants were reminded by email (and telephone, if nonresponsive) to complete online versions of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Short Form 12 (SF-12). We also recorded participant HMO health care services utilization in the 12 months following study enrollment.

RESULTS: Out of a recruitment pool of 12051 approached subjects, 255 persons accessed the Internet enrollment site, completed the online consent form, and were randomized to one of the three groups: (1) treatment as usual control group without access to the ODIN website (n = 100), (2) ODIN program group with postcard reminders (n = 75), and (3) ODIN program group with telephone reminders (n = 80). Across all groups, follow-up completion rates were 64% (n = 164) at 5 weeks, 68% (n = 173) at 10 weeks, and 66% (n = 169) at 16 weeks. In an intention-to-treat analysis, intervention participants reported greater reductions in depression compared to the control group (P = .03; effect size = 0.277 standard deviation units). A more pronounced effect was detected among participants who were more severely depressed at baseline (P = .02; effect size = 0.537 standard deviation units). By the end of the study, 20% more intervention participants moved from the disordered to normal range on the CES-D. We found no difference between the two intervention groups with different reminders in outcomes measures or in frequency of log-ons. We also found no significant intervention effects on the SF-12 or health care services.

CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to our earlier trial, in which participants were not reminded to use ODIN, in this trial we found a positive effect of the ODIN intervention compared to the control group. Future studies should address limitations of this trial, including relatively low enrollment and follow-up completion rates, and a restricted number of outcome measures. However, the low incremental costs of delivering this Internet program makes it feasible to offer this type of program to large populations with widespread Internet access.

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 110&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/vSWM_LvcSVA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/vSWM_LvcSVA/</link>
                    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2005/2/e16/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2005/2/e16/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Comparing the Efficacy of Two Internet-Based, Computer-Tailored Smoking Cessation Programs: A Randomized Trial</title>
                    <description>BACKGROUND: Online computer-tailored smoking cessation programs have not yet been compared directly.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of two Internet-based, computer-tailored smoking cessation programs.

METHODS: Randomized controlled trial conducted in 2003-2004. Visitors to a smoking cessation website were randomly assigned to either an original online, interactive smoking cessation program or to a modified program. Both programs consisted of tailored, personalized counseling letters based on participants' characteristics, followed by monthly email reminders. The original program was based on psychological and addiction theory, and on preliminary research conducted in the same population. The modified program was shorter and contained more information on nicotine replacement therapy and nicotine dependence, and less information on health risks and coping strategies. In both programs, 1 month and 2 months after entering the study, participants were invited by email to answer the same tailoring questionnaire again in order to receive a second counseling letter. Participants in both programs obtained, on average, 1.2 feedback counseling letters over 2.5 months, and 84% received only 1 feedback letter. The outcome was self-reported smoking abstinence (no puff of tobacco in the previous 7 days), assessed 2.5 months after entry in the program. We report results from intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses, where all non-respondents at follow-up were counted as smokers.

RESULTS: The baseline questionnaire was answered by a total of 11969 current (74%) and former (26%) smokers, and the follow-up survey by 4237 people (35%). In an ITT analysis, abstinence rates in baseline current smokers were respectively 10.9% and 8.9% (odds ratio [OR]=1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.08-1.43, P=.003) in the original and modified programs, and 25.2% and 15.7% (OR=1.81, CI 1.51-2.16, P&lt;.001) in baseline former smokers. While we found statistically significant differences in quit rates in smokers in the contemplation stage favoring the original program (OR=1.54, CI 1.18-2.02, P=.002), no between-group differences in quit rates were observed in smokers in the precontemplation (OR=1.07, CI 0.36-3.14, P=.91) and preparation (OR=1.15, CI 0.97-1.37, P=.10) stages of change.

CONCLUSIONS: In smokers in the contemplation stage of change and in former smokers, the original program produced higher smoking abstinence rates than the modified program.

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 94&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/xw4f7ubuwUk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/xw4f7ubuwUk/</link>
                    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e2/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e2/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Review Of Internet Health Information Quality Initiatives</title>
                    <description>BACKGROUND: The massive growth of health information on the Internet; the global nature of the Internet; the seismic shift taking place in the relationships of various actors in this arena, and the absence of real protection from harm for citizens who use the Internet for health purposes are seen to be real problems. One response to many of these problems has been the burgeoning output of codes of conduct by numerous organizations trying to address quality of health information.

OBJECTIVES: Review the major self-regulatory initiatives in the English-speaking world to develop quality and ethical standards for health information on the Internet. Compare and analyze the approaches taken by the different initiatives. Clarify the issues around the development and enforcement of standards.

METHODS: Quality initiatives selected meet one or more of the following criteria: Self-regulatory. A reasonable constituency. Diversity (eg, of philosophy, approach and process)-to achieve balance and wide representation, and to illustrate and compare different approaches. Historic value. A wider reach than a national audience, except when its reach is a significant sector of the Internet health information industry.

The initiatives were compared in 3 ways: (1) Analysis and comparison of: key concepts, mechanism, or approach. Analysis of: the obligations that a provider has to meet to comply with the given initiative, the intended beneficiaries of that initiative, and the burdens imposed on different actors. These burdens are described in terms of their effect on the long-term sustainability and maintenance of the initiative by its developers. Analysis of the enforcement mechanisms. (2) Analysis and comparison by type of sponsoring organization, the reach of the initiative, and the sources of funding of the initiative or the sponsoring organization. (3) How the various initiatives fall under 1 of 3 key mechanisms and comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of these key mechanisms.

RESULTS: The issues that affect the initiatives and future work on the quality of health information on the Internet are identified and analyzed. These issues are:

(a) Three key mechanisms used in the quality initiatives (b) Sustainability issues that affect the initiatives: Burdens placed on health information providers, citizens and others. Currency and maintenance issues of the initiatives. Funding. Cost. Acceptance. Market conditions. User indifference or ambivalence. (c) Enforcement issues surrounding the initiatives (d) Adequacy of approach, scope, reach, and enforcement provisions of the various quality initiatives (e) Gaps that need to be addressed to achieve good quality of health information on the internet

CONCLUSIONS: Ten conclusions are presented. A framework of action to be undertaken by the World Health Organization in the field of quality of health information on the Internet is recommended.

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 93&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/zn0FyUACEqc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/zn0FyUACEqc/</link>
                    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2001/4/e28/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2001/4/e28/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Users of Internet Health Information: Differences by Health Status</title>
                    <description>BACKGROUND: Millions of consumers have accessed health information online. However, little is known about their health status.

OBJECTIVE: To explore use of Internet health information among those who were sicker (fair/poor general health status) compared with those reported being healthier.

METHODS: A national, random-digit telephone survey by the Pew Internet &amp; American Life Project identified 521 Internet users who go online for health care information. Our primary independent variable was general health status rated as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Patterns of Internet use, and types of information searched were assessed.

RESULTS: Among the 521 users, 64% were female, most (87%) were white, and median age was 42 years. Most individuals indicated that they learned something new online (81%) and indicated that they believe most information on the Internet (52%). Compared with those with excellent/good health, those with fair/poor health (N = 59) were relative newcomers to the Internet but tended to use the Internet more frequently, were more likely to use online chats, were less likely to search for someone other than themselves, and were more likely to talk about the new information with their physician (odds ratio 3.3 [95% confidence interval 1.8-6.3]), after adjustment for age, education and income.

CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals should be aware that their sicker patients are more likely to ask them about information they found online. Physicians, public health professionals, and eHealth developers should work together to educate patients about searching for health information online and to provide tools for them to navigate to the highest quality information.

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations: 81&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~4/UgrmtuBPESk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopus/~3/UgrmtuBPESk/</link>
                    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2002/2/e7/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2002/2/e7/</feedburner:origLink></item>
            	</channel>
</rss>

