The article below was published today on StayHealthy.com's site at
stayhealthy.com
(This is why I keep urging everyone to check the site daily, because
it updates VERY frequently, and sometimes what you find there could
contain possible clues to what lies ahead for us.)
For instance, this portion of the article is intriguing: "Anyone with an urgent medical query won't have much luck with the online experts. None of the sites that offered ''ask the experts'' sections produced any response over an 11-day period not surprising, because each site cautions that the high number of questions received means no guarantee of an answer."
Now ask yourself this: why would our company's site run this article that doesn't even mention STAY, and is critical of the performance of health sites online experts in general?????? :-) Comments anyone?
-Madly
On Health Sites, Discrepancies Can Be as Common as Answers HEATHER COCKS - New York Times Syndicate
Wednesday September 29, 1999
AUSTIN, Texas Ask the health experts at Johns Hopkins University's Intelihealth Web site, and they'll say taking vitamins isn't widely regarded as a way to treat or control Hepatitis C.
But surf on over to Flash Gordon, M.D., the most prolific health guru at webmd.com and he'll tell you different. Gordon singles out Vitamins C and E, as well as flaxseed oil, as the diet supplements doctors think can help Hepatitis C patients.
Such discrepancies prove fairly common among health-related Web sites. The Johns Hopkins team warns osteoporosis sufferers against drinking alcohol, but the team at the Mayo Clinic's Web site claims alcohol in moderation is acceptable for those with the bone disease.
Internet health sites have come under scrutiny in recent months from health professionals who fear that in the lucrative online arena, the business-minded entrepreneurs behind the Web sites could end up pledging allegiance to advertisers rather than the Hippocratic Oath. Some critics also claim that, by relying on medical Web sites, consumers risk making a self-diagnosis based on biased or unreliable information.
To evaluate the consistency or dissimilarities of medical advice being dispensed online, an Austin American-Statesman reporter tried posing eight health questions to six Web sites.
The only common thread? Silence.
Anyone with an urgent medical query won't have much luck with the online experts. None of the sites that offered ''ask the experts'' sections produced any response over an 11-day period not surprising, because each site cautions that the high number of questions received means no guarantee of an answer.
Those who seek help with their own detailed scenarios may also strike out. Broad questions are most likely to be answered, according to most sites with the exception of The Mayo Clinic site, mayohealth.org and the Johns Hopkins site at intelihealth.com both of which fielded very case-specific queries.
But the answers don't always come from practicing physicians. The Intelihealth site's ''Ask the Doc'' segment instead featured answers from professors and researchers at Johns Hopkins. Drkoop.com's Dr. Nancy Snyderman, is a professor with training in ear, nose and throat conditions, but makes a living as a television correspondent.
Feature articles and resource material can provide more answers.
Most online health information cites university researchers, national associations and medical journals as primary sources. Two Austin-based sites, drkoop.com and healthanswers.com seemingly comprehensive profiles of disease symptoms, causes, treatments and symptoms but without attributing that information to any particular source.
That is part of what's drawn criticism from the medical community, and the sites seem to be on the defensive. Each article ends with a small-text disclaimer explaining that the information is no substitute for a doctor's diagnosis.
Drkoop.com flashes a lengthy disclaimer the first time users try to access information about prescription medication. The disclaimer states that the site makes every attempt to guarantee the accuracy of the information, which comes from an independent medical researcher.
Of the six sites visited, none appeared guilty of bowing to its sponsors, another criticism of health sites. An ad for Primatene Mist, an oral inhaler for asthma sufferers, graced the top of the Mayo Clinic's Web page but a quick search turned up the site's explanatory document on asthma, where its doctors advised patients against reliance on inhalers.
In terms of accessibility of information, investigating major diseases or medical conditions is relatively simple. All the sites categorized information about topics such as AIDS, cancer, diabetes and women's health into their own sections, offering links to medical news, question-and-answer archives, journals and chat rooms.
Culling information for rarer or lesser-known conditions proves trickier. Healthanswers.com turns up information about spina bifida only if users look for it under the birth defect's other name, myelomeningocele.
On site-wide searches for spina bifida, Healthanswers.com and others return more coherent documents with better explanations of treatments and symptoms. But lists of those more helpful pieces are also peppered with more complicated reference material such as the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, where each definition is littered with medical lingo that the average person may find tough to digest.
Information about prescription drugs can be just as problematic. To read about the obesity drug Meridia, well-known thanks to a flood of television and print advertisements, drkoop.com users have to brush up on their clinical vocabulary to understand the potential drug interactions.
Meridia ''should not be taken if you have taken a monoamine oxidase inhibitor,'' the article warns, ''such as isocarboxazid, tranylcypromine or phenelzine.'' |
