The Wisdom of Patients: A Primer on Health Care 2.0

[Richard Corcoran]

Greetings,

Noticed that this forum has not yet attracted the kind of response you’d expect from those of us tracking the trajectory of health care in America and elsewhere. The internet is challenging and changing everything we previously thought we knew about communication, learning, and the power of social discourse (both for good and ill). :confused:

I know that something is happening out there (in the great somewhere) that can and will make health care better and safer for all of us (everywhere) because I find useful, practical, evidence-based tools and resources nearly every day.

A recent report produced by the California Healthcare Foundation is as good and readable a summary of Health Care 2.0 as I’ve run across. The evidence cited supports the notion that if you haven’t been paying attention to this, it’s time to begin - click here (http://www.chcf.org/documents/chronicdisease/HealthCareSocialMedia.pdf) to download and read.

Here are a few things I highlighted –

· “…the internet rivaled physicians as the leading source for health information.”· “…networks can get better as more people use them.”· “Groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.”· ”…social networks can facilitate the care integration that improves patient’s daily management of chronic conditions.”· “Patient opinion leaders have emerged in many disease areas…”· “….envision Web 3.0, otherwise known as the Semantic Web.”· “Where the genuine conversation is, that’s where the teachable moment is.”· “It’s so obvious that people learn through the experience of other people.”Be interested to know if any of you highlight anything.

[dhowell]

Good Morning! Yes indeed the web has a plethora of resources out there for health care consumers to utilize, BUT just as the "wisdom of crowds" has become a buzz word, there is also the "stupidity of the masses" (quotes mine). I tend to be profoundly uncomfortable with anything taken as fact by large groups with no credentialed experts vetting them. People with hidden agendas can and have been able to sway public opinion. I also feel that the potential for abuse of personal information is certainly an ongoing concern. That being said, as long as people realize that the web is a community much like any other, one thing will always be true...you should never take candy from strangers! ;)

[Richard Corcoran]

All good points!

First, I share your level of discomfort about any group of any size that attests to anything of fact that has not been thoughtfully articulated and examined carefully and tested in the reliability crucible and has “passed the test” (whatever that means) - all the more reason for any group to contain a variety of experts and expertise.

Second, the potential to be unduly swayed by anyone is another excellent reason for groups to have enough diversity of expertise, talent, initiative, and courage among its members to hold everything up to the light of “transparency”.

Third, privacy and confidentiality concerns are real – all the more reason for groups to be organized around legitimate, open, and transparent issues, motives, and people.

I like the excellent advice about exercising caution on the web.

Do others agree??

[Jaz-Michael King]

Very salient points all, and I'll comment for real a little later when I'm not so rushed, but I wanted to mention the Health 2.0 conference this autumn in San Francisco, I'm planning on attending and thought I'd share a link: http://www.health2con.com/sf.html