Abstract
Objective
To assess medical information provided in a medically oriented Internet discussion group, in terms of the professional status of the individuals providing information, the consistency of the information with standard medical practice, and the nature of the evidence cited in support of specific claims or recommendations.
Design
Standardized review of 1,658 consecutive messages on a particular online discussion group during a 5-month period.
Setting
An online discussion group for sufferers of painful hand and arm conditions.
Subjects
All participants in this discussion group during the study period.
Measurements and main results
Professional training of those offering medical information, consistency of the advice and recommendations offered with conventional medical practice, and nature of evidence cited in support of medical claims were determined. Of all messages, 55.9% (927) addressed a medical topic. Of these, 79% (732) provided medical information, of which 89.3% (654) were authored by persons without professional medical training, and 5.1% (37) were authored by trained health professionals. Approximately one third of the medical information provided was classified as unconventional. Personal experience was the basis of information provided in 61% of the nonprofessionals’ messages and 13.5% of the professionals’ messages, while no source was given as the basis of information provided in 29.8% of the nonprofessionals’ messages and 67.6% of the professionals’ messages. A published source was cited in 9.2% of the nonprofessionals’ and 18.9% of the professionals’ messages.
Conclusions
These findings suggest that medical information available on Internet discussion groups may come from nonprofessionals and may be unconventional, based on limited evidence, and/or inappropriate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kassirer JP. The next transformation in the delivery of health care. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:52–4.
Osheroff JA, Bankowitz RA. Physicians’ use of computer software in answering clinical questions. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993;81:11–9.
Nagy K. Cancer information seekers cruise the “highways”. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:1115–8.
Glowniak JV. Medical resources on the Internet. Ann Intern Med 1995;123:123–31.
Leap of faith over the data tap. Lancet. 1995;345:1449–51. Editorial
Goldwein JW, Benjamin I. Internet-based medical information time to take charge. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:152–3.
Reynolds TM. Popular medical information on Internet. Lancet. 1995;346:250. Letter.
Sharma P. Popular medical information on Internet. Lancet. 1995;346:250. Letter.
Spooner SA. On-line resources for pediatricians. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;149:1160–8.
Kassirer JP, Angell M. The Internet and theJournal. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1709–10.
Želigher J. Internet news: patient handouts from the Internet. MD Comput. 1995;12:338–59.
Chute CG, Crowson DL, Buntrock JD. Medical information retrieval and WWW browsers at Mayo. In: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care: 1995: 903–7.
Hoke F. Struggle over online cancer service spurs larger medical ethics debate. Scientist. 1995;9:1–6.
Keoun B. Cancer patients find quackery on the Web. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:1263–5.
Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet:Caveat lector et viewor—Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277:244–5.
Gerr F, Letz R, Landrigan PJ. Upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders of occupational origin. Annu Rev Public Health. 1991;12:543–66.
Young JH. American Health Quackery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1992.
Young JH. The paradise of quacks. NY State J Med. 1993;93:127–33.
Dehart OW. Quackery: the modern highwayman. South Med J. 1992;85:793–4. Editorial.
Sullivan-Fowler M. Doubtful theories, drastic therapies: autointoxication and faddism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 1995;50:364–90.
Dwyer J. Fertile field for fads and fraud. Questionable nutritional therapies. NY State J Med. 1993;93:105–8.
Macklis RM. Magnetic healing, quackery, and the debate about the health effects of electromagnetic fields. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:376–83.
Strosberg JM. Reflections on the use of unproven arthritis remedies. NY State J Med. 1993;93:118–9.
Jarvis WT. Allergy-related quackery. NY State J Med. 1993;93:100–4.
Lerner IJ. Cancer quackery. Psychiatric Med. 1987;5:419–29.
Sampson WI. AIDS fraud, finances, and fringes. NY State J Med. 1993;93:92–6.
Unproven methods of cancer management: Laetrile. CA Cancer J Clin. 1991;41:187–92.
Osterweis M. Bereavement intervention programs In: Osterweis M, Solomon F, Green M, eds. Bereavement: Reactions. Consequences, and Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press: 1984.
Reissman F, Carroll D. Self-help and the new health agenda. In: Redefining Self-Help Policy and Practice. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1995.
Jacobs MK, Goodman G. Psychology and self-help groups: predictions on a partnership. Am Psychol. 1989;44:536–45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Dr. Culver was supported, in part, by Occupational Safety and Health Training Grant TOI/CCT410462, from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Dr. Frumkin was supported, in part, by Environmental/Occupational Medicine Academic Award KO7 ESO0257 from the National Institute of Environmental health Sciences.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Culver, J.D., Gerr, F. & Frumkin, H. Medical information on the internet. J GEN INTERN MED 12, 466–470 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00084.x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00084.x