There is no question technology and medical research have advanced the quality of health care. But how have these things impacted our ability to care for ourselves? Or, more specifically, how have they influenced our relationship with our health care? Well, we know a few things. We know that 80 percent of Internet users seek out health information online and that this is the third most common activity online after checking email and using search engines (Brainard, 2011). While this may seem like a good thing on face value, there is still a debate over whether we are receiving helpful or even accurate information online.
Heffernan (2011) looks at some of the most popular symptom checker websites in her article “A Prescription for Fear.” According to her assessment, the Mayo Clinic Health Information site avoids hysteria, drug peddling and misinformation, which some other sites, she says, are still offering up. Heffernan (2011) goes so far as to describe WebMD as a “hypochondriac time suck,” and lambasts them for permitting pseudo medicine and subtle misinformation, while doing some “big pharma shilling.” Heffernan (2011) uses some pretty strong words to describe WebMD, such as in this quote: “It’s not only a waste of time, but it’s also a disorder in and of itself — one that preys on fear and vulnerability of its users to sell them half-truths and, eventually, pills.”
Hebbernan (2011) notes that now health sites have significant influence over how Americans think about their health and play a role in health care policy. Considering this role, Hebbernan (2011) illustrates the contrast between pharmaceutical company funded sites vs. non-profit sites and how one provides worst-case-scenario advice while the other provides basic information relevant to a majority of people. In reality, however, both sites accept money from pharmaceutical companies and others, just as most doctors are influenced by these companies (Brainard, 2011). Still, Brainard (2011) asked six health reporters which site they would prefer and they all said Mayo Clinic. Since there isn’t much third-party review of these health sites, and considering that 80 percent of the population has come to depend on them for health information, it makes sense that there should be more scrutiny or skepticism on the part of the public. But that isn’t happening, and according to Brainard (2011), only 15 percent of people who find health information online actually check the sources. Add to that the propensity of people who gravitate toward worst-case-scenario information and there are many opportunities for online quackery (Brainard, 2011). Even worse are health sites with an agenda, such as the anti-vaccine movement.
Dr. Steve Ellen talks about some of the dangers of online diagnosis tools in this video:
Fox (2011) found that about a quarter of Internet users look for information about food safety and recalls, pregnancy and drug safety, but about 66 percent look for information on specific diseases or a medical problem and about 56 percent look for information on medical treatment or procedures. They found a few disparities, however, such as people seeking out this information are primarily women, white, between the ages of 18 and 49, and have a high household income (Fox, 2011). In contrast, fewer than half of African Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, adults over 65 and people with low-income households are seeking out this information (Fox, 2011).
This infographic shows how the online health care movement is playing out on mobile devises:
 |
| http://hin.com/blog/2015/05/01/infographic-mobile-delivers-healthcare/ |
So, in conclusion, it is a good thing that people want to be more informed and are taking ownership of their health. But there needs to be more outside evaluation of the medical advice we are getting online and a more critical look taken by consumers to ensure they are getting accurate information. And there needs to be more equitable accessibility to these services so that where there are benefits, everyone knows about them and can utilize them. One thing is certain, health sites are completely transforming how we perceive and receive health care. It offers many promising outcomes but we still need to maintain a critical eye when trusting something as serious as diagnosing health issues online.
References
Brainard, C. (2011). Dr. Search Engine. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/dr_search_engine.php
Heffernan, V. (2011). A prescription for fear. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/magazine/06FOB-Medium-t.html?_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment