Journal of Medical Internet Research
The leading peer-reviewed journal for digital medicine and health and health care in the internet age.
Editor-in-Chief:
Gunther Eysenbach, MD, MPH, FACMI, Founding Editor and Publisher; Adjunct Professor, School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Canada
Impact Factor 5.8 CiteScore 14.4
Recent Articles
Researchers have many options for web-based survey data collection, ranging from access to curated probability-based panels, where individuals are selectively invited to join based on their membership in a representative population, to convenience panels, which are open for anyone to join. The mix of respondents available also varies greatly regarding representation of a population of interest and in motivation to provide thoughtful and accurate responses. Despite the additional dataset-building labor required of the researcher, convenience panels are much less expensive than probability-based panels. However, it is important to understand what may be given up regarding data quality for those cost savings.
Digital platforms offer a venue for patients and physicians to exchange health information and provide health care services outside traditional organizational contexts. Previous studies have seldom focused on the factors that drive the proactivity of physicians’ online behavior. Additionally, there is limited research exploring the influence of patients on physicians’ online behavior, particularly from the perspective of patients possessing power.
Internet-based psychological interventions provide accessible care to a wide range of users, overcoming some obstacles—such as distance, costs, and safety—that might discourage seeking help for mental issues. It is well known that psychological treatments and programs affect the body, as well as the mind, producing physiological changes that ought to be considered when assessing the efficacy of the intervention. However, the literature investigating changes in biomarkers specifically after internet-based psychological and mental health interventions has not yet extensively inquired into this topic.
Evidence suggests that illness perceptions held by people living with multiple sclerosis (MS) impact affective distress and physical health outcomes. In a randomized controlled trial, we developed 2 MS Online Courses—the standard care course and the intervention course (IC). The IC was adapted from an evidence-based lifestyle program. Modifying lifestyle risk factors offers an opportunity to impact illness perceptions. Research on illness perceptions in people living with MS has focused predominately on quantitative methods.
Engaging in social activities, interacting with peers, and participating in community events may promote health and well-being. Recently, interventions leveraging information and communications technology have emerged as potent tools for promoting social connections and well-being. Particularly, messenger apps have become an integral part of our daily lives, facilitating communication, information dissemination, and social interaction. However, there remains a gap in the literature regarding the utilization of widely adopted messenger apps for this purpose.
Nationally, COVID-19 spurred the uptake of telehealth to facilitate patients’ access to medical care, especially among individuals living in geographically isolated areas. Despite the potential benefits of telehealth to address health care access barriers and enhance health outcomes, there are still disparities in the accessibility and utilization of telehealth services. Hence, identifying facilitators and barriers to telehealth should be prioritized to ensure that disparities are mitigated rather than exacerbated.
Accurate measurement of food and nutrient intake is crucial for nutrition research, dietary surveillance, and disease management, but traditional methods such as 24-hour dietary recalls, food diaries, and food frequency questionnaires are often prone to recall error and social desirability bias, limiting their reliability. With the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), there is potential to overcome these limitations through automated, objective, and scalable dietary assessment techniques. However, the effectiveness and challenges of AI applications in this domain remain inadequately explored.
To address geographic barriers to specialty care access for services such as cardiology, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has implemented a novel, regionalized telehealth care hub. The Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) model extends care, including cardiology services, to individuals in low-access communities across the region. Little is known, however, about the reach of such programs.
Psychoeducation is a recommended first-line intervention for transition-aged autistic youth, but it has not been previously evaluated in an internet-delivered format. SCOPE (Spectrum Computerized Psychoeducation) is an 8-week individual, internet-delivered, therapist-supported psychoeducative intervention.
Digital health interventions have gained prominence in recent years, offering innovative solutions to improve health care delivery and patient outcomes. Researchers are increasingly using qualitative approaches to explore patient experiences of using digital health interventions. Yet, the qualitative methods used in these studies can vary widely, and some methods are frequently misapplied. We highlight the methods we find most fit for purpose to explore user experiences of digital tools and propose 5 questions for researchers to use to help them select a qualitative method that best suits their research aims.
The COVID-19 pandemic prompted social distancing policies and caused misinformation that hindered in-person HIV screening for high-risk groups. Social media platforms provide additional options for voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) for HIV, overcoming these limitations. However, there is a lack of data on HIV testing recruitment through social media platforms and its outcomes during the pandemic.
Preprints Open for Peer-Review
Open Peer Review Period:
-
Open Peer Review Period:
-
Open Peer Review Period:
-
Open Peer Review Period:
-