J R Soc Med 2003;96:74-76
doi:10.1258/jrsm.96.2.74
© 2003 Royal Society of Medicine
The doctor, the patient and the world-wide web: how the internet is changing healthcare
J A Powell MSc MFPHM
M Darvell MA 1
J A M Gray DSc FRCP 2
Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health & Policy,
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E
7HT, UK
1 Public Health & Clinical Quality Directorate, Department of Health,
Richmond House, Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS, UK
2 National electronic Library for Health, Institute of Health Sciences,
University of Oxford, Old Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK
Correspondence to: Dr John Powell E-mail:
john.powell{at}lshtm.ac.uk
 |
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
To understand individual use of the internet and its impact
on individuals,
communities and societies is a challenge that
is only beginning to be
addressed. There are more than 580 million
internet users world
wide
1, and over 16
million active users
of the world-wide web in the
UK
2. This is more
than the estimated
number of UK smokers yet little has been done to assess the
potential
health impact of the internet. New developments will lead to
further
growth in internet usage, and this medium is increasingly
being employed for
health information and healthcare delivery.
Clinicians need to understand the
possibilities of this technology,
and to be aware of potential threats to
health.
 |
THE INTERNET AS A RESOURCE FOR HEALTH INFORMATION
|
|---|
One of the main uses of the internet is as an encyclopaedic
information
resource. Surveys consistently show that 60-80%
of world-wide-web users have
used it to obtain health
information
3,4.
The
internet has the potential to educate and empower the health
consumer, by
providing information on health and health services
and supporting self-help
and patient choice. The expert
patient can only become expert if
he or she can access
and use information, and the internet can support the
increasing
role of consumers in their
healthcare
5.
Two-thirds of those
using the internet to find health information claim it has
some
impact on their healthcare
decisions
3.
Consumers value the anonymity,
convenience and quantity of
information
6.
Many concerns have been raised about the quality of online consumer health
information, and the possibility that poor information has detrimental effects
on health. A systematic review of 79 studies investigating the quality of
online health information revealed that the methodology and rigour of these
studies varies widely, as do the
findings7. The
information is often incomplete and sometimes inaccurate, although good
quality material can be found. While consumers state that they pay heed to the
credibility of internet sites, in practice little evaluation is carried out
and users seldom remember the sites from which they retrieved
information8. The
quality of internet information needs to be examined in the wider context of
imperfect health information
generally9, and
there is little reason to view the internet as radically different from other
information
sources10. While
there have been isolated case reports of individuals coming to harm from
information on the internet, there is no systematic evidence that more harm
arises from this medium than from
others11. DAERI
(the Database of Adverse Events Related to the Internet) has been established
at the University of Heidelberg to monitor this area
[www.medcertain.org/daeri/].
Perhaps the difference that the internet is making to consumer health
information is one of quantity rather than one of quality. The quality of
information has always varied; the internet has simply increased the quantity
and the ease of access. Education of consumers or content producers may help
reduce the spread of poor
information9,10.
The internet also supports professional health information. Clinicians are
benefiting from increased access to evidence, policy and guidelines, and
training and professional development. Health datasets, increasingly available
online, will facilitate research.
 |
THE INTERNET AS A MEDIUM FOR INTERACTION
|
|---|
It is the interactivity of the internet that possibly has the
most profound
impact on health and healthcare. The universal
and pervasive e-mail is making
fundamental changes to the way
that people work. E-mail communication between
doctors and patients
is becoming part of medical practicealthough a US
survey
suggests that doctors are reluctant to embrace this new medium
until
they are convinced it will save time or
money
12 (this
is
understandable, although impacts on effectiveness and quality
might also be
considered).
The revolution in communication and knowledge exchange between individuals
is most evident in the phenomenon of virtual communities. In the health area,
an example is support for people with
HIV13. Peer to peer
support in virtual communities benefits from the absence of traditional
barriers to access; and online anonymity can be helpful for those who have
stigmatizing or embarrassing conditions. The international possibilities of
virtual communities allow individuals with rare diseases to find peer support
and allow all users to draw on a wide range of health perspectives and
experience.
There are concerns that the lack of professional moderation or facilitation
in most virtual communities may lead to inappropriate and disruptive use, or
to the dissemination of inaccurate messages. (This applies, of course, to any
forum where consumers meet face to face.) There are also concerns that
participation in virtual communities may become addictive for some users.
Problematic or addictive internet use is most commonly associated with the
interactive functions of the internetonline shopping, gambling and
chatrooms (especially sexual flirtation or cybersex). A syndrome
of uncontrollable internet use to the detriment of other activities such as
work or social life has been
characterized14.
Other symptoms of addiction such as irritability and low mood when access is
denied, or an increasing tolerance to the length of time spent online, may
also be present. Data on incidence are lacking.
There has been speculation that internet use could lead to depression or
social isolation. There is a need for high-quality research in this area, with
carefully chosen control groups. The work to date suggests that there is no
consistent major
effect15,16.
 |
THE INTERNET AS A TOOL FOR THE DELIVERY OF HEALTHCARE
|
|---|
The internet is increasingly being used for healthcare delivery.
Health
promotion and education interventions have been successfully
delivered
online
17,18,
and there are early reports of psychological
interventions via the
internet
19. A
randomized controlled trial
showed that an e-mail discussion group had a
positive effect
on health status in people with chronic back
pain
20. Specialties
which
have used telemedicine for remote diagnosis and asynchronous
communication
can now explore the enhanced possibilities of the
internetfor
example to provide virtual outreach
consultations
in areas with poor access to conventional services.
The development of electronic patient records and the networking of primary
and secondary care have the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of
health services. The internet can also be used as a medium for health
researchusing online interviews, focus groups and quantitative survey
methods21,22.
 |
SHIFTING THE BALANCE OF POWER
|
|---|
The internet is changing the balance of knowledge between healthcare
professionals
and the public, empowering patients to become more involved
in
healthcare decision-making and contributing to the deprofessionalization
of
medicine
23. The
professional power of medicine is being challenged
by the public availability
of specialist knowledge, and by improved
access to information on alternative
approaches to healthcare,
healthcare performance statistics, and consumer
rights.
Many patients now bring internet printouts to the consultation, and
benefits to patients are being
reported24. However
internet printout syndrome or cyberchondria has
generally been portrayed as a time-consuming affliction of the worried
well. The internet offers the potential for patients to become more
involved in their own care, learning about their condition, accessing and
contributing to their online health record, and interacting with health
servicesfor example using shared decision-making
tools5. Clinicians
can assist by recommending high-quality websites and listing these in
information sheets.
 |
THE INTERNET AND PUBLIC HEALTH
|
|---|
The advent of an internet-enabled information society
could
have much broader consequences. For example, network access
is supporting more
home-working, which could impact on public
health in many ways: decreased
individual travel and increased
commercial deliveries of goods may reduce
traffic pollution
and accidents, but may also reduce social interaction and
physical
exercise. Effects are to be expected on home life, productivity
and
energy consumption.
At present the internet is predominantly a computer-mediated tool, and
there is a need to quantify its health impact with respect to ergonomic
issuesfor example, postural musculoskeletal disorders. In the future
the internet will become more integrated with other technologies and this will
need assessment. There is also a need for work around sustainability issues
and computersincluding the disposal of hardware and the myth of the
paperless office (now full of internet printouts).
The internet allows development of communitiesexplicit in chatroom
format, but also implicit communities of individuals linking with each other
through hypertext or e-mail connections. In this way the internet can support
campaigning and democratization, giving users the means to organize socially
and politically, and it can facilitate the working of communities of practice
(such as public health networks). However, the ease of establishing such
links, coupled with the anonymous nature of the internet, creates an
environment where deviancy can flourish. A quarter of school-age children in a
US survey reported having felt unsafe while
online25. The
internet is used for the dissemination and display of offensive materials, and
by paedophile rings.
 |
ACCESS ISSUES: THE HAVE-NETS AND THE HAVE-NOTS
|
|---|
The term digital divide has been coined to describe
the gaps
in access and understanding that may exclude certain
groups from use of new
digital technologies. As one might expect,
the groups most at risk of digital
exclusion are those that
already have unequal access to health services and
suffer health
inequalitiesfor example, the poor, the homeless, those
with
limited formal education, disabled or elderly people and those
in
developing countries. Internet users tend to be young, affluent
and
employed
4. There are
also digital divides by level of education,
between rural and urban areas, and
among certain ethnic minority
groups
26.
The internet offers the possibility of reducing inequalities in
healththrough low-cost dissemination of consumer and professional
information, remote delivery of health services, and removal of barriers to
access. But care must be taken to ensure that differential access to new
technology does not exacerbate existing inequalities in health. The World
Health Organization has expressed concern at the digital divide between the
developed and developing world and this has led to initiatives such as the
Health Internetwork
[www.healthinternetwork.net]
which aims to provide free access to resources such as biomedical
publications.
 |
CONCLUSIONS
|
|---|
The internet is having profound impacts on health and healthcare.
It has
the potential to improve the effective and efficient
delivery of healthcare,
empower and educate consumers, support
decision-making, enable interaction
between consumers and professionals,
support the training and revalidation of
professionals, and
reduce inequalities in health. But there is a need for
vigilance
regarding new and emerging threats to health posed by the internet.
Investigation
of both positive and negative health impacts of this evolving
technology
must continue. As yet there has been little rigorous research
on
health effects of the internet. Work in this area must acknowledge
the
importance of the wider determinants of health: in addition
to the more
obvious direct effects, the impact of the internet
on domains such as the
economy, employment, the environment,
and transport will all influence health
and healthcare.
 |
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Nua Internet Surveys. How Many Online? May 2002
[www.naus.jc/surveys/how_many_online/index.htm]
(accessed July 2002)
- Nielsen Netratings. Internet Usage Statistics for the Month of
June 2002, United Kingdom
[www.209.249.142.57/uk/web/NRpublicreports.usagemonthly]
(accessed July 2002).
- Fox S, Rainie L. Vital Decisions: How Inter-net Users Decide
what Information to Trust when they or their Loved Ones are Sick.
Washington, DC: The Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2002
[www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Vital_Decisions_May2002.pdf]
(accessed July 2002)
- Taylor H. The Harris Poll 21. Cyberchondriacs Update, May 1st
2002
[www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.nsp7PID-299]
(accessed July 2002)
- Gray JAM. The Resourceful Patient. Oxford: eRosetta Press,
2002
[www.resourcefulpatient.org]
(accessed July 2002)
- Fox S, Rainie L. The Online Health Care Revolution: How the Web
helps Americans take Better Care of Themselves. Washington, DC: The Pew
Internet & American Life Project, 2000
[www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Health_Report.pdf]
(accessed July 2002)
- Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing
the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a
systematic review. JAMA2002; 287:2691
-700[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Eysenbach G, Kohler C. How do consumers search for and appraise
health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus
groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ2002; 324:573
-7[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Purcell GP, Wilson P, Delamothe T. The quality of health
information on the internet. BMJ2002; 324:557
-8
- Shepperd S, Charnock D. Against internet exceptionalism.
BMJ2002; 324:556
-7[Free Full Text]
- Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm
associated with the use of information on the internet.
JAMA2002; 287:2869
-71[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Anonymous. Taking the Pulse: Physicians and Emerging
Information Technologies. New York: Deloitte Research &
Fulcrum Analytics, 2002
- Reeves PM. How individuals coping with HIV/AIDS use the Internet.
Health Educ Res2001; 16:709
-19[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Shapira NA, Goldsmith TD, Keck PE Jr, Khosla UM, McElroy SL.
Psychiatric features of individuals with problematic internet use.
J Affect Disord2000; 57:267
-72[Medline]
- Wastlund E, Norlander T, Archer T. Internet blues revisited:
replication and extension of an Internet paradox study.
Cyberpsychol Behav2001; 4:385
-91[Medline]
- Sanders CE, Field TM, Diego M, Kaplan M. The relationship of
Internet use to depression and social isolation among adolescents.
Adolescence2000; 35:237
-42[Medline]
- Celio AA, Winzelberg AJ, Wilfley DE, et al. Reducing risk
factors for eating disorders: comparison of an Internet- and a
classroom-delivered psychoeducational program. J Consult Clin
Psychol 2000;68:650
-7[CrossRef][Medline]
- Takahusi Y, Satomura K, Miyagishima K, et al. A new
smoking cessation programme using the Internet. Tob
Control 1999;8:109
-10[Free Full Text]
- Tate DF, Wing RR, Winett RA. Using Internet technology to deliver a
behavioral weight loss program. JAMA2001; 285:1172
-7[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Lorig KR, Laurent DD, Deyo RA, Marnell ME, Minor MA, Ritter PL. Can
a back pain E-mail discussion group improve health status and lower health
care costs?: a randomized study. Arch Intern Med2002; 162:792
-6[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Fischbacher C, Chappel D, Edwards R, Summerton N. Health surveys by
the internet: quick and dirty or rapid and robust. J R Soc
Med 2000;93:356
-9[Free Full Text]
- Lenert LA, Looman T, Agoncillo T, Nguyen M, Sturdy A, Jackson CM.
Potential validity of conducting research on headache in internet populations.
Headache2002; 42:200
-3[Medline]
- Hardey M. Doctor in the house: the internet as a source of lay
health knowledge and the challenge to expertise. Social Health
Illness 1999;21:820
-35[CrossRef]
- Potts HW, Wyatt JC. Survey of doctors' experience of patients using
the Internet. J Med Internet Res 2002;4:e5
[www.jmir.org/2002/1/e5]
(accessed July 2002)
- Stahl C, Fritz N. Internet safety: adolescents' self-report.
J Adolesc Health2002; 31:7
-10[Medline]
- Irving L, Klegar Levy K. Falling through the Net: Defining the
Digital Divide. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, 1999
[www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/FTTN.pdf]
(accessed July 2002)

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Mackert, B. Love, and P. Whitten
Patient education on mobile devices: an e-health intervention for low health literate audiences
Journal of Information Science,
February 1, 2009;
35(1):
82 - 93.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. A Rennie, S. Hannan, N. Maycock, and C. Kang
Age-related macular degeneration: what do patients find on the internet?
J R Soc Med,
October 1, 2007;
100(10):
473 - 477.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. Umefjord, K. Hamberg, H. Malker, and G. Petersson
The use of an Internet-based Ask the Doctor Service involving family physicians: evaluation by a web survey
Fam. Pract.,
April 1, 2006;
23(2):
159 - 166.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|