Internet Usage by Parents Prior to Seeking Care at a Pediatric Emergency Department: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how parents utilize medical information on the Internet prior to an emergency department (ED) visit. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the proportion of parents who accessed the Internet for medical information related to their child's illness in the 24 hours prior to an ED visit (IPED), to identify the websites used, and to understand how the content contributed to the decision to visit the ED. METHODS: A 40-question interview was conducted with parents presenting to an ED within a freestanding children's hospital. If parents reported IPED, the number and names of websites were documented. Parents indicated the helpfulness of Web-based content using a 100-mm visual analog scale and the degree to which it contributed to the decision to visit the ED using 5-point Likert-type responses. RESULTS: About 11.8 % (31/262) reported IPED (95% CI 7.3-5.3). Parents who reported IPED were more likely to have at least some college education (P=.04), higher annual household income (P=.001), and older children (P=.04) than those who did not report IPED. About 35% (11/31) could not name any websites used. Mean level of helpfulness of Web-based content was 62 mm (standard deviation, SD=25 mm). After Internet use, some parents (29%, 9/31) were more certain they needed to visit the ED, whereas 19% (6/31) were less certain. A majority (87%, 195/224) of parents who used the Internet stated that they would be somewhat likely or very likely to visit a website recommended by a physician. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 out of 8 parents presenting to an urban pediatric ED reported using the Internet in the 24 hours prior to the ED visit. Among privately insured, at least one in 5 parents reported using the Internet prior to visiting the ED. Web-based medical information often influences decision making regarding ED utilization. Pediatric providers should provide parents with recommendations for high-quality sources of health information available on the Internet.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".