Every order is original, expert-done, and screened for AI — full report on request.See how it works

Assignment questions
PsychologyResearch paperHealth anxiety

Cyberchondria Problem and Solution Essay Guide

One problem paragraph and two solution paragraphs in about 700 words. The supplied sources say cyberchondria is not simply health anxiety, and that distinction is the essay.

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 16, 2026

01

One problem paragraph, two solution paragraphs — that is the shape

The structure is given and it is tight: one paragraph establishing the problem, two proposing solutions, roughly 700 words. That leaves no room for a general introduction to the internet, so define cyberchondria in the first sentence and move. The supplied reference list tells you what the definition should contain, because the studies listed are precisely the ones asking whether cyberchondria is distinct from health anxiety and from obsessive-compulsive symptoms — Fergus asks about the overlap directly, Norr examines its relationship to obsessive-compulsive dimensions and validates a severity scale. The finding that makes the essay work is that cyberchondria is not simply health anxiety expressed online: excessive online searching about symptoms escalates rather than relieves distress, and the escalation is the defining feature rather than an incidental effect. Say that, and cite it. Getting that right in the first three sentences buys you room for everything else.

The problem paragraph then needs a mechanism rather than a description. Searching produces reassurance briefly and anxiety durably, because the search returns the full range of possible causes and anxious attention selects the worst of them, which prompts more searching. That loop is the problem and naming it is what makes the solutions non-obvious. Your two solution paragraphs should attack different points in it. One individual-level solution has a clear evidence base: cognitive behavioural approaches targeting the reassurance-seeking behaviour itself rather than the health belief, because reassurance-seeking is the maintaining mechanism and eliminating it is what breaks the loop. A second solution can be structural — health information quality, search result design, or clinician-directed guidance toward a specific vetted source rather than a general instruction to stay off the internet, which patients ignore. Be honest about what each solution cannot do, since a 700-word essay with two confident solutions and no limitations reads as unread.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

  • 01
    Define cyberchondria as distinct from health anxiety.
  • 02
    Describe the reassurance-seeking loop as a maintaining mechanism.
  • 03
    Propose solutions targeting different points in that mechanism.
  • 04
    Work within a fixed paragraph structure and word count.
Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

problem and solution essay 1 problem paragraph 2 solutions paragraphs about 700 word References Doherty-Torstrick, E., Walton, K. E., & Fallon, B. A. (2016). Original research reports: Cyberchondria: Parsing health anxiety from online behavior. Psychosomatics, 57, 390-400. doi:10.1016/j.psym.2016.02.002 Fergus, T. A., & Russell, L. H. (2016). Does cyberchondria overlap with health anxiety and obsessive–compulsive symptoms? an examination of latent structure and scale interrelations.Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 38, 88-94. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.01.009 Norr, A. M., Albanese, B. J., Oglesby, M. E., Allan, N. P., & Schmidt, N. B. (2015). Research report: Anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty as potential risk factors for cyberchondria.Journal of Affective Disorders, 174, 64-69. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.023 Norr, A. M., Allan, N. P., Boffa, J. W., Raines, A. M., & Schmidt, N. B. (2015). Validation of the cyberchondria severity scale (CSS): Replication and extension with bifactor modeling. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 31, 58-64. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.02.001 Norr, A. M., Oglesby, M. E., Raines, A. M., Macatee, R. J., Allan, N. P., & Schmidt, N. B. (2015). Relationships between cyberchondria and obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions.Psychiatry Research, 230, 441-446. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2015.09.034 Poel, F. T., Baumgartner, S. E., Hartmann, T., & Tanis, M. (2016). The curious case of cyberchondria: A longitudinal study on the reciprocal relationship between health anxiety and online health information seeking. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, , 32. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.07.009 Here are some extra resources that just came into the library since last time I searched in the Spring. You are not required to use anything more than the list up above here, this is just in case you can’t find what you want up above here. References Asmundson, G. J. G., Wright, K. D., & Hadjistavropoulos, H. D. (2000). Anxiety sensitivity and disabling chronic health conditions: State of the art and future directions. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy, 29(3-4), 100-117. doi:10.1080/028457100300049719 Psychological treatment of health anxiety and hypochondriasis; a biopsychosocial approach(2008). Book News, Inc. Singh, K. (2014). Health anxiety in the 21st century : The use of the internet for health purposes and its possible effects on health anxiety University of Manchester.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question

You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes. Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages. Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor. The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument

02

Turn the brief into deliverables

  1. 01
    A definition of cyberchondria in the opening.
  2. 02
    One problem paragraph with a mechanism.
  3. 03
    Two solution paragraphs targeting different levels.
  4. 04
    Limitations of each solution.
  5. 05
    Use of the supplied references.
  6. 06
    Approximately 700 words in the required structure.
03

Define cyberchondria, establish the problem, then two solutions

01

Definition and distinction

Define cyberchondria and separate it from health anxiety.

02

The problem: the escalation loop

Describe search, reassurance, escalation and repeat.

03

Who it affects and how much

Give scale and consequences briefly.

04

Solution one: the individual level

Target reassurance-seeking with an evidence-based approach.

05

Solution two: the structural level

Address information quality or clinician direction.

06

Limitations

State what each solution cannot achieve.

04

Using the supplied reference list properly

Recommended databases

  • The supplied reference list
  • PubMed Central
  • PsycINFO
  • MedlinePlus

Search sequence

  1. 1.
    Read the supplied studies; they were chosen to make a specific argument.
  2. 2.
    Look for the distinction between cyberchondria and health anxiety explicitly.
  3. 3.
    Search for intervention evidence on reassurance-seeking.
  4. 4.
    Find guidance on evaluating online health information for the structural solution.
05

Reference shortlist

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.

  1. 01

    Evaluating Internet Health Information

    MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine · 2024

    Guidance on evaluating online health information — the structural solution's basis.

  2. 02

    Anxiety Disorders

    National Institute of Mental Health · 2024

    The anxiety disorder framework cyberchondria is measured against.

  3. 03

    Short-Term Psychodynamic Therapy of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial

    Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2026

    Treatment evidence for obsessive-compulsive presentations, which the literature links to cyberchondria.

  4. 04

    Health Literacy

    MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine · 2025

    Health literacy, which shapes how search results are interpreted.

06

Review before submission

Common mistakes

  • Spending the problem paragraph describing the internet rather than the mechanism.
  • Treating cyberchondria as identical to health anxiety, which the sources dispute.
  • Offering two solutions at the same level, so they do not complement each other.
  • Recommending that patients stop searching, which does not work.

Submission checklist

  • Is cyberchondria defined and distinguished in the first paragraph?
  • Does the problem paragraph name a maintaining mechanism?
  • Do the two solutions attack different points in that mechanism?
  • Are the supplied sources actually used?

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.

Want feedback on your plan before you draft?

Get help interpreting the brief, checking your evidence strategy, and strengthening your outline while keeping the work your own.

Get assignment guidance
Start your order