Does the Internet help in health comm?

One phenomenon introduced by access to the Web is that patients now come to the doctor with much more information than they used to. Some people argue that's good: an informed patient is an empowered patient is a patient who takes control of his/her own health is a patient who is more likely to be healthier. Other people argue that's bad: an over-informed patient wastes the doctor's time with irrelevant information, doesn't know what to believe and what not to believe, doesn't have the expertise to make sense of information, etc.

The following blog post and the links to which it refers follow up on these issues:

A Doctors Disdain for Medical Googlers - Well - Tara Parker-Pope - Health - New York Times Blog

Drug advertising

Celebrex Commercial Draws Criticism - New York Times

So, we've talked very briefly in class about "direct to consumer," or DTC, drug advertising. There's a new development in which a Celebrex ad is being criticized for being misleading. What I find interesting is the ad's format -- 2.5 minutes, rather than the usual 30 or 60 seconds. You can provide much more information in that kind of time. Take a look at the ad, at celebrex.com, and see what you think.

Health literacy -- a crucial issue in health care

The Importance of Knowing What the Doctor Is Talking About - New York Times

This article by Jane Brody of the New York Times (a Cornell alum and very proud of it!) shows how critical "health literacy" is for good health, and gives some practical suggestions for how to ensure patients understand what their doctors tell them.

CDC head says health comm research is crucial for future

The director of the Centers for Disease Control, Julie Gerberding, has been pushing a major reform on CDC. In an interview in Fall 2006, she include health communication as one of the key areas where more research is needed.
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5797/246>

You can see more about health communication at CDC at
<http://www.cdc.gov/communication/healthcomm.htm>

One particular perspective is about the role of entertainment television in promoting health. The CDC website above has lots of links--here's just one interesting study:
<http://www.cdc.gov/communication/surveys/surv2001.htm>

News media and uncertainty

The Nov-Dec 2006 outbreak of e.coli poisoning associated with Taco Bell provides a good example of the challenges of providing good public health information in a time of uncertainty. Although early tests suggested that green onions were the cause of the outbreak, later testing exonerated the onions. A NYTimes article explictly discussed how media coverage of an outbreak changes the flow of information, which is both good (leading to quick action) and potentially confusing (because of the uncertainty).
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/nyregion/13coli.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>

Connections between public health, policy, and economics

Communication on public health issues works at multiple levels. As this New York Times story about a recent e.coli outbreak suggests, it involves at least:

• Communication among health care workers at one facility
• Communication between that facility and a central reporting agency
• Communication between that agency and similar agencies in other states (as well as the national Centers for Disease Control)
• Communication between the agency and the potential source of the illness (in this case, Taco Bell)
• Communication between the agency and the central office of the chain
• Communication between the chain and its suppliers
• Communication between the agency and the media
• Communication between the media and its readers, listeners, viewers, and surfers

There's probably more communication described in the story. Anyone see any?