In the fall of 2000 I spoke at a seminar in a big US research hospital on the Internet and its impact on health care. Another participant was a senior scientist from the National Institute of Health, the US federal medical research agency. He was asked what he saw as the biggest challenge for health professionals over the next 10 years. “The biggest problem,” he replied quietly, “will be how to cope with Internet-informed patients.” The audience (mainly health professionals) laughed appreciatively and went about their daily business.
They might have been less amused if they’d realized what was going on even as the seminar was taking place. In November that year, the Pew Internet and American Life survey found that 55 percent of Americans with Internet access were using the network to get health information. At the time, that corresponded to 52 million people. Two years later the number was up to 73 million. I’m pretty sure that trend has continued. A detailed academic study some years ago estimated that 4.5 percent of all Internet searches were health-related, which at the time translated into 16.7 million health-related queries a day. Again, I’m sure that number has gone up.
All of which suggests that people worry a lot about their health and see the Web as a great way of becoming better informed. The medical profession is, to put it mildly, not over the moon. The more literate practitioners shake their heads and quote Mark Twain’s adage: “Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.” But others are more righteous and wax indignant about what they see as the errors and misinformation peddled by many sites that purport to deal with health issues.
It’s tempting to regard this as the blustering of an elite threatened with the kind of “disintermediation” that has wiped out travel agents. But quite a few studies suggest that the quality of Web health information is pretty variable. For instance, several estimate that about 5 percent of sites dealing with cancer are inaccurate, while those dealing with nutrition are especially suspect.
But there is a lot of really good stuff on the Web and many doctors see it as a force for good. It can transform patients from being passive recipients of health services and encourage them to become more active participants. And it can sometimes aid the diagnostic process, because the patient has thought more about symptoms beforehand. For those and other reasons (including excellent US resources such as www.pubmed.gov), I’ve always thought that Dr Internet was, on the whole, a good thing.
I still think that, but a report by Microsoft Research in Redmond suggests the picture is more complicated. In Cyberchondria: Studies of the Escalation of Medical Concerns in Web Search (available as a PDF download from bit.ly/15Q9h) it claims that “the Web has the potential to increase the anxieties of people with little or no medical training, especially when web search is employed as a diagnostic procedure.” The finding is based on a large-scale study of search-engine logs showing how people seek medical information online, checked against a conventional survey of 515 individuals’ health-related search experiences.
The Microsoft researchers focused on the extent to which common, probably innocuous symptoms can escalate into the perusal of Web pages on serious, rare conditions that are linked to the common symptoms. By “escalation” they mean the process by which a query about “headache” brings up a (reputable) Web page that mentions they can sometimes be symptomatic of a brain tumor (which is true). This leads to a frenzied search on topics such as “brain tumor treatment” and results in a terrified user starting to think about drawing up a will.
The research suggests search engines have the potential to escalate medical concerns. This is partly because they were never designed to be diagnostic tools and partly because reputable Web pages always provide comprehensive listings of possible diseases linked to specific symptoms. But cyberchondria is probably mainly a product of users’ predisposition to escalate rather than settle for more reasonable explanations.
The moral? If you’re a hypochondriac, stay off the Web. And remember that, as the man said, the best cure for your condition is to forget about your body and become interested in somebody else’s.
Last week Joseph Nye, the well-known China scholar, wrote on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s website about how war over Taiwan might be averted. He noted that years ago he was on a team that met with then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), “whose previous ‘unofficial’ visit to the US had caused a crisis in which China fired missiles into the sea and the US deployed carriers off the coast of Taiwan.” Yes, that’s right, mighty Chen caused that crisis all by himself. Neither the US nor the People’s Republic of China (PRC) exercised any agency. Nye then nostalgically invoked the comical specter
April 15 to April 21 Yang Kui (楊逵) was horrified as he drove past trucks, oxcarts and trolleys loaded with coffins on his way to Tuntzechiao (屯子腳), which he heard had been completely destroyed. The friend he came to check on was safe, but most residents were suffering in the town hit the hardest by the 7.1-magnitude Hsinchu-Taichung Earthquake on April 21, 1935. It remains the deadliest in Taiwan’s recorded history, claiming around 3,300 lives and injuring nearly 12,000. The disaster completely flattened roughly 18,000 houses and damaged countless more. The social activist and
Over the course of former President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) 11-day trip to China that included a meeting with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping (習近平) a surprising number of people commented that the former president was now “irrelevant.” Upon reflection, it became apparent that these comments were coming from pro-Taiwan, pan-green supporters and they were expressing what they hoped was the case, rather than the reality. Ma’s ideology is so pro-China (read: deep blue) and controversial that many in his own Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hope he retires quickly, or at least refrains from speaking on some subjects. Regardless
Approaching her mid-30s, Xiong Yidan reckons that most of her friends are on to their second or even third babies. But Xiong has more than a dozen. There is Lucky, the street dog from Bangkok who jumped into a taxi with her and never left. There is Sophie and Ben, sibling geese, who honk from morning to night. Boop and Pan, both goats, are romantically involved. Dumpling the hedgehog enjoys a belly rub from time to time. The list goes on. Xiong nurtures her brood from her 8,000 square meter farm in Chiang Dao, a mountainous district in northern Thailand’s