http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7337/555
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
|
|||||||||||||
 Collections under
which this article appears: World
Wide Web |
Quality of online patient networks needs more attention than quality of online health information
Some doctors still tremble in their boots when patients bring in printouts from the internet. If they refuse to read them, their patients may take offence. But if they attempt to review and discuss them, they may precipitate long, inconclusive discussions. And since many internet aware patients bring in information which their doctors know nothing about,1 such discussions can sometimes be embarrassing. Consequently, some doctors have gone so far as to warn their patients, "Whatever you do, don't go on the internet."
Some studies seem to confirm the wisdom of such advice. A recent literature search turned up 100 studies that attempted to rate the accuracy and completeness of health information on the world wide web. Ratings ranged from about 15% to 85% (Eysenbach G. personal communication). Some doctors have understandably concluded that the healthcare information on the net is not to be trusted.
Our recent surveys at the Pew Internet and American Life Project offer a strikingly different perspective. 2 3 Of adults from the United States who had gone online for health information, 92% said that the last time they went online they found what they were looking for; 81% said they learned something new; 88% said the information they found improved the way they took care of their health. Of those who found health information online, 94% said that it was either "very easy" or "somewhat easy" to do so. And of the 37% who discussed the results of their searches with a health professional, only a tiny minority said that their health professional disagreed with the information they found online.
In explaining this notable difference of opinion between providers and
patients, we must remember that it is only systems without their own
inherent intelligence that require perfect input to operate
effectively. Suppose that we were to subject a dozen randomly
chosen printed sources such as textbooks, articles from magazines,
newspaper stories, patient handouts to a similar evaluation and found
a similar level of variability in quality and completeness. Would we
be justified in concluding that healthcare information in printed
form is so undependable and unreliable that we should warn our
patients against it? I think not. And before we conclude that the
information on the net is inadequate, incomplete, and generally
scary, we might try comparing it with what the typical doctor tells
the typical patient in the typical 10 minute office visit. Medical
services provided online should not be held to a higher standard than
similar services provided in person.
| The internet and
"medical end users"
A net savvy person in the immediate kinship group does most of the
searching. Forty three per cent of online health searchers said that the
last time they went online they were searching for materials related to
their own health concerns When a new illness is diagnosed in a "wired" family, patients or caretakers reach out electronically to inform friends and family. Many recipients respond with messages of support, information, and advice. Interchanges within these private, patient centred networks serve to help end users sort good information from bad information. When end users with a new diagnosis go online to research their
condition, they frequently seek and receive the help of online support
communities as well as online helpers Experienced online end users frequently communicate with online health professionals on sites like www.drgreene.com, www.drweil.com, and www.drdrew.com. They can also check up on their own doctors,6 get informal second opinions online, and find referrals to the best treatment centres. |
Online patients do agree with their doctors on one point
that
much of what passes for online health information is not to be
trusted. Of those with internet access, 82% say that they are
concerned about getting online health information from an unreliable
source.4 Where professionals and patients differ is
in their views of these patients' ability to tell the good from the
bad.
The patients that I and my colleagues have studied have proved themselves so
unexpectedly capable in this regard that we have been forced to ask
ourselves whether we can, in good conscience, continue to use the
term "patient" in describing them. They are by no means patients in
the usual sensea person
under a doctor's care, an invalid, a sufferer or victim, someone who
bears pain and misfortune with fortitude and calm. We are beginning
to substitute the term "medical end user" whenever this seems
appropriate.
The medical end users we study do much more than just visit a single website and make snap decisions based on what they find. They typically use a search engine to find and review a number of different sites that target their specific concerns. 2 3 And they frequently find or form sophisticated online and offline networks, which can help them deal with the task of interpreting complex medical information (see box).
These person to person interactions provide patients with a valuable source of quality control. As one online self helper recently commented: "Doc, out here on the internet we patients have our own system of peer review."
We believe that the 21st century will be the age of the net empowered medical
end user and that the patient driven online support networks of today
will evolve into more robust and capable medical guidance systems
that will allow end users to direct and control an ever growing
portion of their own medical care. Doctors who continue to believe
that their patients are inherently incapable of navigating the
plentiful health resources of the internet will find their net savvy
patients leaving them for other doctors. By contrast, those wise and
caring doctors who realise that we may have just as much to learn
from our patients as they have from us should do very well
indeed.
Tom Ferguson
Online Health, Pew Internet and American Life Project, 1100 Connecticut
Avenue, Washington DC 20036-4116, USA (doctom@doctom.com
)
Footnotes
Guidelines for patients who want to use the web appear on bmj.com
| 1. | Wilson SM. Impact of the internet on primary care staff in
Glasgow. J Med Internet Res 1999; 1(2): e7 |
| 2. | Fox S, Lee R. The online health revolution: how the web helps Americans take better care of themselves. The Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, DC, 26 November 2000. www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=26 (accessed 28 February 2002). |
| 3. | www.pewinternet.org/reports/index.asp. (accessed 28 February 2002). |
| 4. | Ferguson T. Online patient-helpers and physicians working
together: a new partnership for high quality health care. BMJ 2000;
321: 1129-1132 |
| 5. | Ferguson T."God bless my CML support group." The Ferguson Report, No. 8, January 2002. www.fergusonreport.com/articles/fr00803.htm (accessed 28 February 2002). |
| 6. | Stone E, Heinold, JW, Ewing, LM, Schoenbaum, SC, Accessing physician information on the internet. www.cmwf.org/programs/quality/stone_mdinternet_bn_503.asp (accessed 28 February 2002). |
|
||||||||||||
|
Collections under
which this article appears:World
Wide Web |
This article has been cited by other articles:
Read all Rapid Response responses
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.