Health Matters: Studies show internet research does not make an expert
These are strange times, a simple statement most folks would agree with. Our coastlines creep inward, potentially displacing millions, as climate change alters the planet’s surface. Human interaction is a dwindling commodity. Americans are on their phones 24 hours a day, plugged into the information highway in record numbers, addicted to the screen. Consequently, we are constantly inundated with information on every topic imaginable. And yet, the accuracy of much of this material is questionable.
The gluttony of information provided by the internet has had unintended consequences. Because nearly everyone has the ability to post information, regardless of accuracy, you can find a smorgasbord of opinions, recommendations, factoids, on our digital highway. You just have to switch on your computer or pick up your phone.
Much of the information on the internet is not vetted, not derived from credible sources. No expert reviews the piece for accuracy, no objective third party has evaluated the conclusions made. There is usually some bias in terms of what data is selected for presentation. Too often, the author has some “irons in the fire,” meaning they have some agenda in authoring the article.
A peer-reviewed journal is different. All of the articles published within have been reviewed by experts in the field. This process provides stringent quality control, ensuring the accuracy and relevance of the article. This screening process is extremely restrictive, the contents carefully reviewed. Most of the articles submitted typically do not meet the requirements and are never published.
The language required for peer-reviewed journals is of a technical nature, providing the precision necessary. Journals in which this type of article would appear have very restrictive guidelines concerning the language utilized. Consequently, someone without a medical education may misinterpret the data or information derived. The knowledge base needed to understand the nuances of the material is usually weighty.
The most definitive information in the field of the medical sciences comes from double-blinded clinical trials. These are studies with rigorous standards, with few variables, precisely constructed. In such a study, neither the patient nor the researcher are aware of whether they are getting the placebo or the real medicine. The goal is to remove the biases which would accompany the knowledge of the type treatment you are receiving.
Obtaining one’s medical information from the internet has led to delays in care, seemingly giving justification for a self-made diagnosis or assumptions about the seriousness of the condition. Many Americans have held off on seeking professional care because of inaccurate information obtained in this manner. The Internet can also be used to promote unscientifically founded or “fringe” health practices.
When given a diagnosis, a natural desire should be to better understand the condition, the mechanism of the disease, and how it works. Most of us will attain some inner peace having a basic comprehension of any malady developed. But a discussion of treatment can be complicated, and often requires a deeper understanding of the science of the disease, the biochemistry of the systems at play, the physiology of the tissues. Conflicting recommendations on treatment are common in medicine since there is much on this topic that is not well defined. It can be challenging to view and understand the various options for care being utilized.
It should be obvious the patient has a say in the treatments provided; their consent is a necessity. It is their body, and though the physician will inherently have a significantly greater understanding of the nuances of the condition, it is the patient that will be undergoing the treatment and experiencing the side effects, the complications. They are the ones living with the long term benefits and limitations of some therapeutic regimen. Consequently, important decisions made concerning medical care need to be a joint venture.
Unfortunately, the mindset has developed that, armed with the plethora of data on the internet, anyone can do some research and become an expert. Clearly, this is not the case. A superficial understanding of some condition or a particular therapy or treatment is of benefit. But a lay individual, someone who hasn’t spent thousands of hours studying the complexities of the systems composing the human body, cannot be an expert in a week of study.
It has become clear that information obtained from the internet, not the result of well-constructed medical research, must be viewed cautiously. The accuracy of many of the articles available should be read with a critical eye and their conclusions questioned. Decisions regarding medical care should not be made based on sources from the internet but a joint decision, between the individual who has the disease and the expert knowledgeable in that disease.
EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Conway McLean is a podiatric physician now practicing foot and ankle medicine in the Upper Peninsula, having assumed the practice of Dr. Ken Tabor. McLean has lectured internationally on surgery and wound care, and is board certified in both, with a sub-specialty in foot orthotic therapy. Dr. McLean welcomes questions, comments and suggestions at drcmclean@penmed.com.