January 19, 2010
Surveys show that most of us go to the internet to search for health information and we do it fairly often. I was reminded of that as I had one of my infrequent flair-ups of pseudogout. It has been years since I’ve had the pain and swelling in my knees and this time it affected my fingers, my wrists, and even my back. And it didn’t go away after a few days. So I went online. And I found lots of information.
How we search for health information on the internet and what we do with the information once we have it is likely to predict whether the information is going to help or harm us. We can conclude that we are not at risk based on the information and be wrong. We can conclude that we are at risk based on the information and also be wrong. So a good place to start thinking about health information found on the internet is to consider the source of the information.
First, consider the motivation of the source. In the broadest sense, .com sites are commercial, while .org sites identify organizations, and .gov sites come from the government. We usually start with a search engine such as Google to seek answers to our questions. When I did, Google health came up as the first link to information. With so many people searching for health information, I guess it isn’t too surprising that the owners of a search engine like Google might want to get in on the act…
Second, consider the expertise associated with a site. Just ‘who’ is the author of the content you are reading and applying to your health? Is it a doctor or a nurse or a physical therapist? Is the doctor speaking on behalf of research or based on experience as a doctor? Is the information just presented, so the source is just the internet with no way of knowing if there is medical research to support the claims, particular researchers presenting the claims, or doctors supporting the research conclusions. I followed the Google health link and I searched for information about the expertise. I found some information at the bottom of a loooooooong page of information. But I couldn’t trace it back to any research. So I couldn’t find out much about where all the conclusions were coming from. Health communication researchers find this to be the case time and again. Not just on the internet. In newspapers, magazines, and broadcast news reports, the expert source on which information is being based is too seldom mentioned.
Third, what part of the information is the author of the content emphasizing, and what part is not being discussed? Is the author providing information for an organization that wants them to present a particular point of view? So, they might be describing the benefits of getting care at the organization whose site they represent but not tell you that it cost more than your insurance is likely to pay. Or, they might be telling the benefits related to one type of treatment for the drug company who has paid for the site you are reading, and they likely believe in those benefits, but there may be no discussion of the risks for the treatment. So, consider not only what content is included in the information but what content might be missing as well.
Doing so should help to make the information we find useful and help us to frame additional searches for more information to fill in the missing content…