Read 104 times since Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Since the dawn of existence it has been vital for survival that one individual learns from the
others - which lake not to drink water from, what smell indicates rotten food, looking at
both sides before crossing a road. From pre-historic conversations around a campfire
to quick exchanges on Twitter, people reach out for their peers to learn from their
experience - and that is pretty much what keeps us alive!
Health 2.0 is just a fancy name for campfire get togethers that happen online 24-7 and
focus on health instead of mammoths hunting. A nicer way of saying it is: technology
based on user-generated content and the power of networks as a tool for personalized
health care, collaborating, and promoting health education.
While some prefer to think of "health" as a topic apart that needs specialised handling,
the reality is that people are already exchanging health information with each other,
and they always have. Online resources simply amplify their reach, increasing their
chances of actually finding useful information this way. Instead of relying on the
neighbour's cousin anecdote, people can now learn from the personal experiences
of large numbers of other people with their same condition in an environment where
doctors can actually moderate the conversation.
This freedom to share and receive information has, however, the downside of creating
huge amounts of available information. It is up to patients to carefully filter what they
read and compare it with the advice of doctors to fully benefit from this new resource.
Why criticism against online health communities is not that grave
(and why it is)
Several people like to preach against these "new" phenomenon of user generated
health content. Is it just fear of change and lack of imagination or is there something to
be truly concerned about?
Point #1. Ordinary people are not qualified to talk about health and therefore the
quality of the content is low
Patients may not have a degree in Medicine, but they live with the disease and
they speak about it in first person, which can do a lot to help someone who needs
support and information about it. In addition, the combined wisdom of the crowd
can sometimes help quickly shed light on points that may have escaped a single
specialist.
Point #2. Misleading information can easily spread and cause problems
It is true that the information online can travel and spread very fast. However,
the probability of misleading content being flagged and good content surviving
increases as more people participate. It is the collective wisdom in bits and bytes.
A survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in Washington about social
media in Healthcare found that only 3% of respondents thought they or someone
they knew was somehow harmed by online information.
Point #3. People may delay visiting a doctor
This may be an inverse issue, because as people gain better access to health-
related information they also become able to easily check and recognize the
symptoms of a disease early on, rather than waiting until they get acute to see a
doctor
Overall, while some would like to keep Health a 'black box', helping people find
information and join conversations about health issues that matter to them should
be welcomed as a positive change. Concerns about self-diagnosis, self-medication
and privacy cannot be ignored, but the best way to address them is education, not
censorship.
Who will be the next health gurus?
Recently, we have participated in a health 2.0 tweetup in which an interesting topic was
discussed - if any special approach is necessary for social media in the health sector.
An even more interesting question was raised though, and I would like to dedicate this
post to it: will our future health luminaries be the brightest or the fastest to tweet?
History tells us that most paradigm shifts were surrounded by criticism and supported
by only a handful of early adopters. Nevertheless, coming generations picked up the
trend and soon what was inconvenient turned it into "ordinary".
Web 2.0, with all likelihood, is not a fad and more and more people will "join the
conversation", creating and improving tools. Besides, today's professionals are already
engaged in health 2.0 and the ones to come will have this new model "built-in".
Therefore, the real question seems to be: will "tweeters" be completely different
from "brightest" in any special way other than it already happens with good
communicators versus poor communicators? Maria Gonzales, a Medico.com health blogger interested in a wide range of diseases and conditions, included but not limited to participatory health, health 2.0,endocrinology, diabetes, diabetes type 1, diabetes type 2, and more.
|
|
