scholarly journals Participatory medicine as a new way to produce medical knowledge

2010 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. C04
Author(s):  
Denise Silber

Public communication on health issues on the Internet is not only a matter of popularization of medical information. It deeply deals with narration, conversation and dialogue, which are typical values in the Web 2.0. This interview will emphasize that blogs, forums, wiki are new ways in which population has been reconstructing and integrating medical knowledge. These ways are re-defining medical knowledge by means of unhinging the standard medical communication practices, based on a linear diffusion of knowledge form experts to laypeople.

2011 ◽  
pp. 958-974
Author(s):  
Guy Paré ◽  
Jean-Nicolas Malek ◽  
Claude Sicotte ◽  
Marc Lemire

The primary aim of this study is twofold. First, the authors seek to identify the factors that influence members of the general public to conduct Internet searches for health information. Their second intent is to explore the influence such Internet use has on three types of personal empowerment. In the summer of 2007 the authors conducted a household sample survey of a population of Canadian adults. A total of 261 self-administered questionnaires were returned to the researchers. Our findings indicate that use of the Internet as a source of health information is directly related to three main factors: sex, age and the individual’s perceived ability to understand, interpret and use the medical information available online. Further, their results lend support to the notion that using the Internet to search for information about health issues represents a more consumer based and participative approach to health care. This study is one of the first to relate Internet use to various forms of personal empowerment. This area appears to have great potential as a means by which consumers can become more empowered in managing personal health issues.


Author(s):  
Guy Paré ◽  
Jean-Nicolas Malek ◽  
Claude Sicotte ◽  
Marc Lemire

The primary aim of this study is twofold. First, the authors seek to identify the factors that influence members of the general public to conduct Internet searches for health information. Their second intent is to explore the influence such Internet use has on three types of personal empowerment. In the summer of 2007 the authors conducted a household sample survey of a population of Canadian adults. A total of 261 self-administered questionnaires were returned to the researchers. Our findings indicate that use of the Internet as a source of health information is directly related to three main factors: sex, age and the individual’s perceived ability to understand, interpret and use the medical information available online. Further, their results lend support to the notion that using the Internet to search for information about health issues represents a more consumer based and participative approach to health care. This study is one of the first to relate Internet use to various forms of personal empowerment. This area appears to have great potential as a means by which consumers can become more empowered in managing personal health issues.


2011 ◽  
pp. 2134-2142
Author(s):  
Abrams A. O’Byuonge ◽  
Leida Chen

The increasing use of the Internet by consumers gave rise to an information boom to health-care consumers. Not only could the Internet be used as a communication tool to provide information that would allow patients to make informed decisions, but it could also be used to generate revenue for investors. The dot-com boom of the late 1990s exploited this opportunity, targeting the health-care system, a $1.7 trillion market in the United States alone. Overall, the health-care system is wasteful and costly (Itagaki, Berlin, & Schatz, 2002), and as a result, health-care IT was touted as the magic pill for cutting costs. The Internet boom of the late 1990s saw the emergence of e-health: the delivery of health services and health information through the Internet and Internet-related technologies (Eysenbach, 2001). Leading the many entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who stepped in to seize a piece of the health-care industry cake were WebMD Corp., an online provider of medical information for doctors and consumers in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, and DrKoop.com, an Austin, Texas-born company that later moved to Santa Monica, California, and began doing business as Dr. Koop LifeCare Corp. Dr. C. Everett Koop, the former U.S. surgeon general, had spent over 6 decades in the medical profession. He envisioned the Internet as an opportunity to change the health-care delivery system in order to empower individuals to take charge of their own health care (Musselwhite, 2002). With this vision and his reputation as an advocate for health-care reform, along with the help of two budding entrepreneurs, Don Hackett and John Zacarro, the trio opened a business-to-consumer Internet portal: DrKoop.com. The portal was designed to provide health information to consumers in areas such as chronic illness, food and nutrition, fitness, and medical breakthroughs. At the beginning, the Web site was an overwhelming success, receiving a million hits per month after 2 years of operation, and about 4 million unique visitors per month at its peak. The portal included a personal medical-records system that facilitated the cross-referencing of medications for interactions, as well as the storage of medical reports that could then be accessed by both patients and physicians. DrKoop.com’s public woes began in February 2000 when its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, issued a “going concern qualification,” an ominous warning that highlighted the precarious financial situation the Internet-based health service was in Cleary (2000). By the end of 2000, DrKoop.com was still struggling, and in the first 9 months of 2001 alone, the company’s losses were nearly 3 times its revenue. According to the Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC) filings, from January 1999 until the service’s liquidation in September 2001, DrKoop.com’s losses stood at $193.6 million, dwarfing the $41 million revenue generated during the period. At the site’s peak in July 1999, DrKoop.com’s stock rose to $45.75 per share on the NASDAQ, but was worth $0.12 at the time of bankruptcy filing. In July 2002, Vitacost.com, a privately held online seller of nutritional supplements, paid a paltry $186,000 in cash for DrKoop.com’s assets, which included the brand name, trademarks, domain names, the Web site, and the e-mail addresses of its registered users. WebMD, originally called Healtheon/WebMD, was founded by Jim Clark, who also founded Silicon Graphics and Netscape. Clark’s vision was to connect insurance companies, doctors, and patients over the Internet in order to lower costs and reduce paper trails. Rather than building its own products and services, Healtheon used its highly valued stock to finance acquisitions of leading companies in the industries it targeted. In 1999, it acquired WebMD.com and OnHealth, both leading health portals, giving it access to the consumer health market (Salkever, 2000). Though WebMD lost $6.5 billion on revenue of $530.2 million in the first 9 months of 2001, it still continued to expand long after DrKoop.com had dropped off the radar screen. For the fiscal year ending in December 2003, WebMD reported revenues of $964 million, an increase of 10.6% on the previous year’s revenues, which totaled $871.7 million. Of the 11 health-care mergers and acquisition deals in the first 7 months of 2004, valued at $900 million, WebMD was the leading acquirer (Abrams, 2004). Two of WebMD’s high-profile acquisitions in 2004 were the $160 million cash purchase of ViPS, a privately held provider in Baltimore, Maryland, of information technology to the government, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and other health-care insurers; and the $40 million acquisition of Dakota Imaging Inc., a private company in Columbia, Maryland, that offered automated health-care claims processing technology. As industry leaders, WebMD and DrKoop.com faced competition from both health-care information portals (such as HealthGrades.com, MDConsult, ZoeMed.com) and online pharmacies that provided consumers with one-stop shopping for medications and medical information (Walgreens.com, drugstore.com, Webvan.com). The threat from the health-care information portals, nevertheless, was minimal due to their limited brand recognition and information coverage. In the online pharmacy sector, however, Walgreens.com gained a substantial market share by combining the best of both worlds: complementing its physical stores located throughout the country by offering online customer service, convenience, and real-time access to a health library that provided comprehensive information on prescription drugs, insurance, and health issues.


2011 ◽  
pp. 1965-1975
Author(s):  
Prajesh Chhanabhai

The Internet is one of the most utilized resources for obtaining information, learning, communication, and as a source of advice. The most sought after advice and information are related with health matters. In the United States, for example, over 16 million people per year visit WebMD (http:// my.webmd.com/webmd_today/home/default), an online portal dedicated to providing health information and services (Sass, 2003). Health information on the Internet has grown exponentially, with up to 88 million adults predicted to access medical information online in 2005 (Ansani et al., 2005). This merging of medical knowledge and information knowledge has given birth to e-health. Despite the growth and application of information and communications technology (ICT) in health care over the last 15 years, e-health is a relatively new concept, with the term being introduced in the year 2000 (Pagliari et al., 2005). Its use has grown exponentially, and as Pagliari et al. (2005) reported, there are over 320,000 publications addressing e-health listed in MEDLINE alone. However, there is still no clear definition of e-health. There have been two international calls, in 2001 and 2004, for a clear and concise definition of e-health, but both failed to produce an internationally acceptable definition. In the same paper, Pagliari et al. (2005) found 24 different definitions, highlighting the fact that this is a gray area. Hence, without a clear and standardized definition, the opportunities to conduct unethical behavior are made easier.


Author(s):  
Guy Paré ◽  
Jean-Nicolas Malek ◽  
Claude Sicotte ◽  
Marc Lemire

The primary aim of this study is twofold. First, the authors seek to identify the factors that influence members of the general public to conduct Internet searches for health information. Their second intent is to explore the influence such Internet use has on three types of personal empowerment. In the summer of 2007 the authors conducted a household sample survey of a population of Canadian adults. A total of 261 self-administered questionnaires were returned to the researchers. Our findings indicate that use of the Internet as a source of health information is directly realted to three main factors: sex, age and the individual’s perceived ability to understand, interpret and use the medical information available online. Further, their results lend support to the notion that using the Internet to search for information about health issues represents a more consumer-based and participative approach to health care. This study is one of the first to relate Internet use to various forms of personal empowerment. This area appears to have great potential as a means by which consumers can become more empowered in managing personal health issues.


Author(s):  
Abrams A. O’Byuonge ◽  
Leida Chen

The increasing use of the Internet by consumers gave rise to an information boom to health-care consumers. Not only could the Internet be used as a communication tool to provide information that would allow patients to make informed decisions, but it could also be used to generate revenue for investors. The dot-com boom of the late 1990s exploited this opportunity, targeting the health-care system, a $1.7 trillion market in the United States alone. Overall, the health-care system is wasteful and costly (Itagaki, Berlin, & Schatz, 2002), and as a result, health-care IT was touted as the magic pill for cutting costs. The Internet boom of the late 1990s saw the emergence of e-health: the delivery of health services and health information through the Internet and Internet-related technologies (Eysenbach, 2001). Leading the many entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who stepped in to seize a piece of the health-care industry cake were WebMD Corp., an online provider of medical information for doctors and consumers in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, and DrKoop.com, an Austin, Texas-born company that later moved to Santa Monica, California, and began doing business as Dr. Koop LifeCare Corp. Dr. C. Everett Koop, the former U.S. surgeon general, had spent over 6 decades in the medical profession. He envisioned the Internet as an opportunity to change the health-care delivery system in order to empower individuals to take charge of their own health care (Musselwhite, 2002). With this vision and his reputation as an advocate for health-care reform, along with the help of two budding entrepreneurs, Don Hackett and John Zacarro, the trio opened a business-to-consumer Internet portal: DrKoop.com. The portal was designed to provide health information to consumers in areas such as chronic illness, food and nutrition, fitness, and medical breakthroughs. At the beginning, the Web site was an overwhelming success, receiving a million hits per month after 2 years of operation, and about 4 million unique visitors per month at its peak. The portal included a personal medical-records system that facilitated the cross-referencing of medications for interactions, as well as the storage of medical reports that could then be accessed by both patients and physicians. DrKoop.com’s public woes began in February 2000 when its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, issued a “going concern qualification,” an ominous warning that highlighted the precarious financial situation the Internet-based health service was in Cleary (2000). By the end of 2000, DrKoop.com was still struggling, and in the first 9 months of 2001 alone, the company’s losses were nearly 3 times its revenue. According to the Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC) filings, from January 1999 until the service’s liquidation in September 2001, DrKoop.com’s losses stood at $193.6 million, dwarfing the $41 million revenue generated during the period. At the site’s peak in July 1999, DrKoop.com’s stock rose to $45.75 per share on the NASDAQ, but was worth $0.12 at the time of bankruptcy filing. In July 2002, Vitacost.com, a privately held online seller of nutritional supplements, paid a paltry $186,000 in cash for DrKoop.com’s assets, which included the brand name, trademarks, domain names, the Web site, and the e-mail addresses of its registered users. WebMD, originally called Healtheon/WebMD, was founded by Jim Clark, who also founded Silicon Graphics and Netscape. Clark’s vision was to connect insurance companies, doctors, and patients over the Internet in order to lower costs and reduce paper trails. Rather than building its own products and services, Healtheon used its highly valued stock to finance acquisitions of leading companies in the industries it targeted. In 1999, it acquired WebMD.com and OnHealth, both leading health portals, giving it access to the consumer health market (Salkever, 2000). Though WebMD lost $6.5 billion on revenue of $530.2 million in the first 9 months of 2001, it still continued to expand long after DrKoop.com had dropped off the radar screen. For the fiscal year ending in December 2003, WebMD reported revenues of $964 million, an increase of 10.6% on the previous year’s revenues, which totaled $871.7 million. Of the 11 health-care mergers and acquisition deals in the first 7 months of 2004, valued at $900 million, WebMD was the leading acquirer (Abrams, 2004). Two of WebMD’s high-profile acquisitions in 2004 were the $160 million cash purchase of ViPS, a privately held provider in Baltimore, Maryland, of information technology to the government, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and other health-care insurers; and the $40 million acquisition of Dakota Imaging Inc., a private company in Columbia, Maryland, that offered automated health-care claims processing technology. As industry leaders, WebMD and DrKoop.com faced competition from both health-care information portals (such as HealthGrades.com, MDConsult, ZoeMed.com) and online pharmacies that provided consumers with one-stop shopping for medications and medical information (Walgreens.com, drugstore.com, Webvan.com). The threat from the health-care information portals, nevertheless, was minimal due to their limited brand recognition and information coverage. In the online pharmacy sector, however, Walgreens.com gained a substantial market share by combining the best of both worlds: complementing its physical stores located throughout the country by offering online customer service, convenience, and real-time access to a health library that provided comprehensive information on prescription drugs, insurance, and health issues.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 205520762094899 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gopi Battineni ◽  
Simone Baldoni ◽  
Nalini Chintalapudi ◽  
Getu Gamo Sagaro ◽  
Graziano Pallotta ◽  
...  

Background Internet represents a relevant source of information, but reliability of data that can be obtained by the web is still an unsolved issue. Non-reliable online information may have a relevance, especially in taking decisions related to health problems. Uncertainties on the quality of online health data may have a negative impact on health-related choices of citizens. Objective This work consisted in a cross-sectional literature review of published papers on online health information. The two main research objectives consisted in the analysis of trends in the use of health web sites and in the quality assessment and reliability levels of web medical sites. Methods Literature research was made using four digital reference databases, namely PubMed, British Medical Journal, Biomed, and CINAHL. Entries used were “trustworthy of medical information online,” “survey to evaluate medical information online,” “medical information online,” and “habits of web-based health information users”. Analysis included only papers published in English. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to conduct quality checks of selected works. Results Literature analysis using the above entries resulted in 212 studies. Twenty-four articles in line with study objectives, and user characteristics were selected. People more prone to use the internet for obtaining health information were females, younger people, scholars, and employees. Reliability of different online health sites is an issue taken into account by the majority of people using the internet for obtaining health information and physician assistance could help people to surf more safe health web sites. Conclusions Limited health information and/or web literacy can cause misunderstandings in evaluating medical data found in the web. An appropriate education plan and evaluation tools could enhance user skills and bring to a more cautious analysis of health information found in the web.


2011 ◽  
pp. 78-86
Author(s):  
Jane Moon

This article provides an overview of the trend in Internet usage; in particular, the trend that relates particularly to health-information-seeking behavior. It discusses a paradigm shift in patientdoctor relationships that has resulted from social changes; that is, lack of consultation time, thirst for medical knowledge, mass-media medical information and an explosion in the number of health Web sites. The Internet has become an important medium for bridging the gap in the patient-doctor relationship. Issues of Internet quality are explored. While the Internet can help consumers by providing immediate feedback as far as treatment and medication are concerned, without proper standards and quality assurance it can give rise to diabolical consequences (Crocco, Villasis-Keever, & Jadad, 2002). Ciolek describes information on the Internet as mediocre and argues that health information on the Internet is subject to “Multi Media Mediocrity” (MMM) (Ciolek, 1997).


Author(s):  
Prajesh Chhanabhai

The Internet is one of the most utilized resources for obtaining information, learning, communication, and as a source of advice. The most sought after advice and information are related with health matters. In the United States, for example, over 16 million people per year visit WebMD (http://my.webmd.com/webmd_today/ home/default), an online portal dedicated to providing health information and services (Sass, 2003). Health information on the Internet has grown exponentially, with up to 88 million adults predicted to access medical information online in 2005 (Ansani et al., 2005). This merging of medical knowledge and information knowledge has given birth to e-health.


2022 ◽  
Vol 37 (71) ◽  
pp. 031-053
Author(s):  
Kristina Stenström ◽  
Katarina Winter

Online contexts offer an important source of information and emotional support for those facing involuntary childlessness. This article reports the results from an ethnographic exploration of TTC (trying-to-conceive) communication on Instagram. Through a new materialist approach that pays attention to the web of intraacting agencies in online communication, this article explores the question of what material-discursive bodies (constructs of embodiment and medical information) emerge in TTC communication as the result of shared images and narratives of bodies, symptoms, fertility treatments, and reproductive technologies. Drawing on a lengthy ethnographic immersion, observations of 394 Instagram accounts, and the close analysis of 100 posts, the study found that TTC communication produces collective, unruly, and becoming bodies. Collective bodies reflect collectively acquired, solidified, and contested medical knowledge and bodies produced in TTC communication. Unruly bodies are bodies that do not conform to standard medical narratives. Becoming bodies are marked by their shifting agency, such as pregnant or fetal bodies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document