Alnylam, a client at my previous agency, is a MITX Inteactive Awards finalist this year in the Biotechnology/ Pharmaceuticals category.  Congratulations to the team that designed and developed the site and especially to our client who championed the design with management and maintained high standards throughout the development process.  This is an award that is well deserved.

UPDATE: Alnylam.com was the winner last night.  Drinks all around and even more congratulations to all involved.

Alnylam.com MITX Interactive Awards Finalist is a post from: Trumblog

Two recent studies point out a disconnect of trust between doctors and patients and the material that they find online.

Doctors like online product information, but don’t trust it.

79% of doctors want to get product information online, but only 27% of doctors trust the information on official pharma company websites. Only 15% liked to get information from sales reps, which explains why I’m seeing less and less of sales rep support projects, and 6% like journal ads. This is all according to Therapeutics Daily reporting on a study by OnMedica, but I can’t find the source.

Patients like online product information and do trust it.

This is in-line with what I’ve heard so many times from patients in focus groups that they absolutely trust pharma company websites because “if it wasn’t the truth they’d get sued.” A Harris Poll is saying that 86% of Americans going online to find medical information find the information that they find reliable.

Other interesting information from the poll is;

• 25% of online patients use the internet to find healthcare information often,

• they look for healthcare information online 4.8 times a month,

• most, 89%, say that they find what they are looking for,

• just under half, 47%, discuss the information they find online with their doctors, and

• about half, 49%, go online to look for information as a result of discussions with their doctors.

Take a look again at those last two bullets. Just about half of online patients talk about health information that they find online with their doctors and soon after meeting with their non-internet-trusting doctor almost half of patients return to the internet for more information. Based on the other data in this poll (a quarter of online patients going online for healthcare information a little less than 5 times a month and mostly finding information that they want) clearly the drive from information on one’s medical situation to the web is pretty profound. It’s also clear that patients don’t care (or notice) that their doctors by and large do not trust the information that is found online.

Why don’t doctors trust online health information?

Does their concern about the patient forums and herbal cures cloud their feelings about Pharmaceutical company sites, WebMD, Revolution Health, etc?

Do they dislike their authority being challenged by a patient who has more time to research a specific disease state then they will?

Do they not trust their patients to make informed decisions based on their doctor’s recommendation and that patients do not believe everything that they read online or off?

I don’t know, but I’d like to find out because it’s my job to facilitate the doctor patient relationship in order to provide better care for patients. Patients need to have substantive conversations with their doctors and the only way to do that it to come to the appointment with information to ask the right questions and understand the answers. The tools for patients to learn and support their own care are available online and they are turning to them. How can I help doctors to accept that this is happening and take advantage of the opportunity that it provides.

Patient Literacy Programs

Giving patients the tools that they need to find trustworthy health information online; teaching them to looking for sources, validate facts with corroborating information, consider drug interactions, etc. seems like an obvious first step. I know of programs to ensure that the information that a doctor provides patients is understood, but how about working with patients to help them understand the information that they find outside the doctor’s office?

Acknowledging that patients will turn to internet resources to deal with their own health care or that of their loved ones and making that experience better and result in information that doctors can trust to work with at the next visit would seem like an enormous boon. What do you think? What tools have you found to bridge this gap?

Solving the Online Healthcare Information Trust Gap is a post from: Trumblog

The Pew Internet & American Life Project released a new report E-patients With a Disability or Chronic Disease that paints an interesting picture of adults with disabilities or chronic disease states as being less likely to go online, but when they do use it more and the information that that they find there having a greater impact on their health care.

This provides an interesting set of opportunities for those of us developing health care websites. E-patients with chronic diseases or disabilities may be few, but they are of great value because they are more receptive and have a better experience therefore communicating the information that they find to their community who remains offline. These patients are more likely to be looking online for information soon after they are diagnosed and seem to go directly to known websites rather than searching. Therefore targeting the recently diagnosed and promoting the website itself on and offline may be a path to success.

Here is a summary of the findings.

Adults with chronic disease states are less likely to go online…

• Half (51%) of those living with a disability or chronic disease go online, compared to 74% of those who report no chronic conditions.

But those that do use the internet with more voracity than other e-patients…

• 86% of internet users living with disability or chronic illness have looked online for information about at least one of 17 health topics, compared with 79% of internet users with no chronic conditions.

And the information that they receive impacts their treatment to a greater degree…

• 75% of e-patients with chronic conditions say the information they found in their last search affected a decision about how to treat an illness or condition, compared with 55% of e-patients who report no disability or illness.
• 69% of e-patients with chronic conditions say the information led them to ask a doctor new questions or to get a second opinion from another doctor, compared with 52% of other e-patients.
• 57% of e-patients with chronic conditions say the information changed the way they cope with a chronic condition or manage pain, compared with 36% of other e-patients.
• 56% of e-patients with chronic conditions say the information changed the way they think about diet, exercise, or stress management, compared with 42% of other e-patients.

Other interesting data…

• E-patients with chronic conditions are less likely than others to start their information queries at search engines than e-patients without chronic conditions (56% compared to 67%).
• General search engines still dominate, but e-patients with chronic conditions are more likely than others to turn to trusted health sites (37% compared to 26% of e-patients without chronic conditions).
• E-patients with chronic conditions have mostly positive things to say about their online health searches, but they are more likely than others to report frustration as well.
• Online health information had the greatest impact for users who had received a serious diagnosis or experienced a health crisis in the past year.
• Like most other e-patients, patients with chronic conditions also do not consistently check the source and date of the health information they find online. But they are less likely to “never” check the source and date (13%, compared with 22%).

Fewer But Deeper: Online Health Information and Chronic Diseases is a post from: Trumblog

The BBC is reporting on a study out if the Netherlands that the interference of cell phones on medical devices was lower than originally feared. The study found that while 2G cell phones did affect devices, including intensive care ventilators, dialysis machines, external pacemaker machines, feeding pumps and air humidifiers, it also found that these phones needed to be only a few centimeters away to interfere with the device and that 3G cell phones were less likely to have an effect.

The British Medical Association has maintained that there is no significant evidence linking mobiles to problems with medical devices, and said that patients would benefit from doctors being able to communicate better with colleagues while on the wards.

Evidently this issue and privacy concerns from phone cameras caused the UK to ban cell phones in hospitals. The ban was reduced earlier this year and there are doctor and patient advocates looking to eliminate it.

While the study does show that the risk is lower, there was one “hazardous” event involving a direct physical influence on the patient.

The researchers wrote: “The policy to keep mobile phones one metre from the critical care bedside seems warranted.”

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advises that mobiles should be kept out of areas with sensitive medical equipment.

A spokesman said: “We recommend that mobile phones are not used in critical care areas such as intensive therapy units (ITU), special care baby units (SCBU) or where patients are attached to complex devices, as any effect on such equipment could be extremely detrimental to patient care.”

Clearly this is good news for the cell phone addicted and those of us developing mobile content for healthcare providers, I’m concerned though that this issue that did not seem to get too much press here in the US is going to become one now with this study.

Does this give me an excuse to upgrade my 2G Treo 650?

Study: Cell Phone Interference With Medical Devices Lower Than Thought is a post from: Trumblog