After reading the blog entry on "Medical Googlers," I was made aware of the burden the internet may place on physician-patient interaction. The entry also brought to mind the problematic practice of Internet Self-Diagnosis. Upon developing a series of symptoms, an individual will often circumvent contacting his or her physician and choose to google the symptoms.
While there is much valuable medical information to be found on the internet, the information must be reviewed carefully. Consider the following quote from the brief article I linked below: "One Web site says a fever, headache, sore throat, aching joints and a rash could be either the measles, monkey pox or SARS; yet another site suggests Lyme disease or diphtheria." I have encountered many individuals who would not hesitate to make any of these diagnoses following a Google search of what appear to be typical flu-like symptoms. I can safely say that in every case I have observed, self-diagnosis only served to add insomnia to the list of symptoms experienced by the individual.
Such Internet Self-Diagnosis raises concerns about contemporary physician-patient communication, or lack thereof.
http://www.hchdonline.com/about/publications/media/2007/NA-Release-InternetSelfDiagnosis-edited.pdf
Monday, January 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I work in the ER at the Cortland Regional Medical Center (30 mins from Ithaca, for you non-natives). Self-diagnosis hasn't been a huge issue in that environment, and I suspect that's because of the nature of problems that show up in the ER. That aside, I've definitely seen cases in which a patient will ask the doctor a question about their potential diagnosis that's obviously been influenced by information from non-medical sources, be it the 'net or well-meaning relatives. In some cases, the patient is educated and well-informed, but we're far more likely to see people who don't have a clue and are grasping at straws because they want an answer.
In my experience, the worth of using the internet for medical information is dubious. There is excellent, trustworthy information out there that can be used to supplement one's understanding of a physician-determined diagnosis. In some cases, patients have been inspired by non-medically sourced information to ask the doctor a key question that leads to a diagnosis. But self-diagnosis can be dangerous: in the given example, the various causes of the fever, headache, sore throat, aching joints, and rash would be treated much differently and with different degrees of urgency. Some of those diagnoses have implications for public health and some do not. Even if one's self-diagnosis is accurate, the internet is not likely to present all possible options for treatment. A visit to one's physician should never be foregone in favor of a Google self-diagnosis.
Of course, none of this touches on the complex and potentially problematic communication between doctors and patients...
I think that a lot of this "self-diagnosis" may have to do with the abundance of drug advertisements in the media (not including the internet). They are everywhere in magazines, television, and radio. A lot of these advertisements are discouraging, offering a ton of information in a short amount of time.
Typically, in a magazine ad, one side of the advertisement will have an attractive, intriguing picture or statement and then the reverse side will have all the information in really, really fine print, usually covering the entire page. It is very plausible that most of the people that are drawn to these advertisements do not read the entire back side. So in light of this inconvenience there is usually a web page. You can see this in television ads as well. Music, images, and a brief list of symptoms or results are listed. Not all of the information will be absorbed, so a web page is provided to "learn more." I think a lot of people are drawn to online diagnosis not just because of a few symptoms they are feeling (not to say that this doesn't happen) but because they are drawn by these advertisements. Knowing that a drug has been approved by certain regulations may even add a sense of trust in their own diagnosis.
I think that a lot of people who inquire in these drugs online (specifically from hearing about them in an advertisement) are more likely to exaggerate a symptom's severity or will convince themselves that they have symptom when in actuality they don't. Most of these companies will recommend that the person seek medical consulting before taking the drug and that sounds good and all, but the danger I see in these advertisements and their online diagnosis is the persistence the person might have in wanting to take the drug. Convincing themselves when they have a symptom and see a drug that can fix it, that they have whatever condition the drug says that it can cure.
I just have to comment, and as much as I don't like to admit, I often go to the web for a 'self-diagnosis' and about 99% of the time I've been classified as on my deathbed. I think that this is one of the consequences of the new tech age and while having access to all of Gray's Anatomy (the book, not the show) at our fingertips is resourceful it also opens up the door for millions of people to suffer the 'medical student syndrome.'
I think it's important to note who is providing this information: a hospital. Hospitals are businesses, and it is in their best interest to keep their customers (sick patients) coming to them. The press release does not cite any statistics; instead, it makes lofty generalizations. It also cites doctors within the institution. Although I agree in what the press release is saying (people should seek the help of professionals rather than try to diagnose themselves), the information is biased. I also agree with what Lindsay had to say about drug advertisements.
Post a Comment