<?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 Scopus Citations per Month 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/Top10CScopusm" /><feedburner:info uri="top10cscopusm" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><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 Per Month: 3.17&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/Z8n9nDKMzz4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~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>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 Per Month: 2.35&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/bAjQbAL7k8k" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~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>Using the Internet to Promote Health Behavior Change: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Theoretical Basis, Use of Behavior Change Techniques, and Mode of Delivery on Efficacy</title>
                    <description>Background: The Internet is increasingly used as a medium for the delivery of interventions designed to promote health behavior change. However, reviews of these interventions to date have not systematically identified intervention characteristics and linked these to effectiveness. Objectives:  The present review sought to capitalize on recently published coding frames for assessing use of theory and behavior change techniques to investigate which characteristics of Internet-based interventions best promote health behavior change. In addition, we wanted to develop a novel coding scheme for assessing mode of delivery in Internet-based interventions and also to link different modes to effect sizes. Methods: We conducted a computerized search of the databases indexed by ISI Web of Knowledge (including BIOSIS Previews and Medline) between 2000 and 2008. Studies were included if (1) the primary components of the intervention were delivered via the Internet, (2) participants were randomly assigned to conditions, and (3) a measure of behavior related to health was taken after the intervention. Results:  We found 85 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria, providing a total sample size of 43,236 participants. On average, interventions had a statistically small but significant effect on health-related behavior (d+ = 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23). More extensive use of theory was associated with increases in effect size (P = .049), and, in particular, interventions based on the theory of planned behavior tended to have substantial effects on behavior (d+ = 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.56). Interventions that incorporated more behavior change techniques also tended to have larger effects compared to interventions that incorporated fewer techniques (P &amp;#60; .001). Finally, the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions was enhanced by the use of additional methods of communicating with participants, especially the use of short message service (SMS), or text, messages. Conclusions: The review provides a framework for the development of a science of Internet-based interventions, and our findings provide a rationale for investing in more intensive theory-based interventions that incorporate multiple behavior change techniques and modes of delivery. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations Per Month: 2.17&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/0p-3Z04h8yE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~3/0p-3Z04h8yE/</link>
                    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:03:11 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2010/1/e4/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2010/1/e4/</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 Per Month: 2.16&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/gwSbACWmgrI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~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 Per Month: 1.74&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/tfaMiB5P7mk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~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>Using the Internet for Health-Related Activities: Findings From a National Probability Sample</title>
                    <description>Background:  eHealth tools on the Internet have the potential to help people manage their health and health care. However, little is known about the distribution and use of different kinds of eHealth tools across the population or within population subgroups.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and predictors of participation in specific online health-related activities.
Methods: A secondary data analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 2005 was conducted to study three online behaviors among Internet users (n = 3244): searching for health information for oneself, participating in a support group for those with similar health or medical conditions, and purchasing medicine or vitamins.
Results: A total of 58% of Internet users reported searching for health information for themselves, 3.8% used online support groups, and 12.8% bought medicine or vitamins online in the past year. Multivariate analysis found that those seeking health information were more likely to be women (OR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.60, 3.09), have cable or satellite Internet connections (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.22, 2.45) or DSL connections (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.36, 2.76), have Internet access from work (OR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.27, 4.67) or from home and work (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.31, 2.30), and report more hours of weekday Internet use (OR = 4.12, 95% CI = 2.41, 7.07). Those with a high school education or less (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.31, 0.63) and those with some college (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.49, 0.89) were less likely to search for health information. Online support groups were more likely to be used by those with “fair” health (OR = 3.28, 95% CI = 1.21, 8.92) and “poor” health (OR = 5.98, 95% CI = 1.49, 24.07) and those with lower incomes (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.09, 6.41) and less likely to be used by those with Internet access both at home and work (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.90). Those who were age 35-49 (OR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.43, 3.26), age 50-64 (OR = 2.44, 95% CI = 1.53, 3.89), and age 65-74 (OR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.30, 3.67) and those who were married (OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.13, 3.30) were more likely to purchase medicine or vitamins online.
Conclusions: The Internet was most widely used as a health information resource, with less participation in the purchase of medicine and vitamins and in online support groups. Results suggest that modifying survey questions to better capture forms of online support and medications purchased could provide greater understanding of the nature of participation in these activities.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations Per Month: 1.56&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/xPDmtia8Fv8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~3/xPDmtia8Fv8/</link>
                    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:52:37 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2009/1/e4/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2009/1/e4/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Sharing Health Data for Better Outcomes on PatientsLikeMe</title>
                    <description>Background: PatientsLikeMe is an online quantitative personal research platform for patients with life-changing illnesses to share their experience using patient-reported outcomes, find other patients like them matched on demographic and clinical characteristics, and learn from the aggregated data reports of others to improve their outcomes. The goal of the website is to help patients answer the question: “Given my status, what is the best outcome I can hope to achieve, and how do I get there?” Objective: Using a cross-sectional online survey, we sought to describe the potential benefits of PatientsLikeMe in terms of treatment decisions, symptom management, clinical management, and outcomes. Methods: Almost 7,000 members from six PatientsLikeMe communities (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS], Multiple Sclerosis [MS], Parkinson’s Disease, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], fibromyalgia, and mood disorders) were sent a survey invitation using an internal survey tool (PatientsLikeMe Lens). Results: Complete responses were received from 1323 participants (19% of invited members). Between-group demographics varied according to disease community. Users perceived the greatest benefit in learning about a symptom they had experienced; 72% (952 of 1323) rated the site “moderately” or “very helpful.” Patients also found the site helpful for understanding the side effects of their treatments (n = 757, 57%). Nearly half of patients (n = 559, 42%) agreed that the site had helped them find another patient who had helped them understand what it was like to take a specific treatment for their condition. More patients found the site helpful with decisions to start a medication (n = 496, 37%) than to change a medication (n = 359, 27%), change a dosage (n = 336, 25%), or stop a medication (n = 290, 22%). Almost all participants (n = 1,249, 94%) were diagnosed when they joined the site. Most (n = 824, 62%) experienced no change in their confidence in that diagnosis or had an increased level of confidence (n = 456, 34%). Use of the site was associated with increasing levels of comfort in sharing personal health information among those who had initially been uncomfortable. Overall, 12% of patients (n = 151 of 1320) changed their physician as a result of using the site; this figure was doubled in patients with fibromyalgia (21%, n = 33 of 150). Patients reported community-specific benefits: 41% of HIV patients (n = 72 of 177) agreed they had reduced risky behaviors and 22% of mood disorders patients (n = 31 of 141) agreed they needed less inpatient care as a result of using the site. Analysis of the Web access logs showed that participants who used more features of the site (eg, posted in the online forum) perceived greater benefit. Conclusions: We have established that members of the community reported a range of benefits, and that these may be related to the extent of site use. Third party validation and longitudinal evaluation is an important next step in continuing to evaluate the potential of online data-sharing platforms. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations Per Month: 1.52&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/dk1atn8_m8U" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~3/dk1atn8_m8U/</link>
                    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:55:49 EDT</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2010/2/e19/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2010/2/e19/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>Social Media Use in the United States: Implications for Health Communication</title>
                    <description>Background:  Given the rapid changes in the communication landscape brought about by participative Internet use and social media, it is important to develop a better understanding of these technologies and their impact on health communication. The first step in this effort is to identify the characteristics of current social media users. Up-to-date reporting of current social media use will help monitor the growth of social media and inform health promotion/communication efforts aiming to effectively utilize social media. Objective:  The purpose of the study is to identify the sociodemographic and health-related factors associated with current adult social media users in the United States. Methods:  Data came from the 2007 iteration of the Health Information National Trends Study (HINTS, N = 7674). HINTS is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey on health-related communication trends and practices. Survey respondents who reported having accessed the Internet (N = 5078) were asked whether, over the past year, they had (1) participated in an online support group, (2) written in a blog, (3) visited a social networking site. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of each type of social media use. Results:  Approximately 69% of US adults reported having access to the Internet in 2007. Among Internet users, 5% participated in an online support group, 7% reported blogging, and 23% used a social networking site. Multivariate analysis found that younger age was the only significant predictor of blogging and social networking site participation; a statistically significant linear relationship was observed, with younger categories reporting more frequent use. Younger age, poorer subjective health, and a personal cancer experience predicted support group participation. In general, social media are penetrating the US population independent of education, race/ethnicity, or health care access. Conclusions:  Recent growth of social media is not uniformly distributed across age groups; therefore, health communication programs utilizing social media must first consider the age of the targeted population to help ensure that messages reach the intended audience. While racial/ethnic and health status&amp;#8211;related disparities exist in Internet access, among those with Internet access, these characteristics do not affect social media use. This finding suggests that the new technologies, represented by social media, may be changing the communication pattern throughout the United States. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations Per Month: 1.46&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/LzwudJhjrpw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~3/LzwudJhjrpw/</link>
                    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:24:54 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2009/4/e48/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2009/4/e48/</feedburner:origLink></item>
                                        <item>
                    <title>eHealth Trends in Europe 2005-2007: A Population-Based Survey</title>
                    <description>Background: In the last decade, the number of Internet users worldwide has dramatically increased. People are using the Internet for various health-related purposes. It is important to monitor such use as it may have an impact on the individual’s health and behavior, patient-practitioner roles, and on general health care provision.
Objectives: This study investigates trends and patterns of European health-related Internet use over a period of 18 months. The main study objective was to estimate the change in the proportion of the population using the Internet for health purposes, and the importance of the Internet as a source of health information compared to more traditional sources.
Methods: The survey data were collected through computer-assisted telephone interviews. A representative sample (N = 14,956) from seven European countries has been used: Denmark, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Norway, Poland, and Portugal. The European eHealth Consumer Trends Survey was first conducted in October-November 2005 and repeated in April-May 2007. In addition to providing background information, respondents were asked to rate the importance of various sources of health information. They were also queried as to the frequency of different online activities related to health and illness and the effects of such use on their disposition.
Results: The percentage of the population that has used the Internet for health purposes increased from an estimated 42.3% (95% CI [Confidence Interval] 41.3 - 43.3) in 2005 to an estimated 52.2% (95% CI 51.3 - 53.2) in 2007. Significant growth in the use of the Internet for health purposes was found in all the seven countries. Young women are the most active Internet health users. The importance of the Internet as a source of health information has increased. In 2007, the Internet was perceived as an important source of health information by an estimated 46.8% (95% CI 45.7 - 47.9) of the population, a significant increase of 6.5 % (95% CI 4.9 - 8.1) from 2005. The importance of all the traditional health information channels has either decreased or remained the same. An estimated 22.7% (95% CI 21.7 - 23.6) are using it for more interactive services than just reading health information.
Conclusion: The Internet is increasingly being used as a source of health information by the European population, and its perceived importance is rising. Use of the Internet for health purposes is growing in all age groups and for both men and women, with especially strong growth among young women. We see that experienced Internet health users are also using the Internet as an active communication channel, both for reaching health professionals and for communicating with peers.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;				
															Scopus Citations Per Month: 1.42&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/pmioW_1UJVY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~3/pmioW_1UJVY/</link>
                    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:57:12 EST</pubDate>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jmir.org/2008/4/e42/</guid>
                                <feedburner:origLink>http://www.jmir.org/2008/4/e42/</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 Per Month: 1.35&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~4/vSWM_LvcSVA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Top10CScopusm/~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>
            	</channel>
</rss>

