In most cases, Web 2.0 health sites are positive step forward. But as with all user-generated content, there is the chance of misinformation:
On the internet, as the old saying goes, nobody knows you are a dog””or an idiot, notes Dan Keldsen of AIIM, a non-profit association based in Silver Spring, Maryland, which helps companies manage digital information. And too much health information can confuse people, says Monique Levy of Jupiter. But a survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in Washington, DC, suggests that although user-generated information offers consumers more health options, the upside outweighs the risk, says Pew’s Susannah Fox. Nearly one-third of the 100m Americans who have looked for health information online say that they or people they know have been significantly helped by what they found. In contrast, only 3% reported that online advice had caused serious harm.
Related posts:
- Using Wikipedia for online health information, my USA Today column
- Too much information?
- Health information on the web
- Why health reform is going to be difficult, and the trouble with saying no to American patients
- HIV exceptionalism
- Fixing doctor rating sites
- Should you be allowed to refuse health insurance?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
When it comes to health information, it’s important to label the source carefully (”dogs” get the doggie label). Allowing people to “consider the source” is the best we can do.
We just launched the first doctor-reviewed search service for health to try and prevent this very problem of misinformation (www.organizedwisdom.com). Search engines have been cluttered up by spam indexers and it is becoming a major problem. We hope to help solve this problem by having doctor-guided search. We welcome any feedback as we are in early beta.
Comments on this entry are closed.