Clearly using the internet to research any topic is valuable.
Whether it's a new book you're thinking about buying on Amazon, researching the latest and greatest high definition television, or finding the value of your used car, the internet is a wealth of information.
We all know that websites track our activity, constantly downloading cookies that both help and hinder our web experience. They allow us to instantly be put into our "Recommendations" page on Amazon.com, but they also may contribute to mining our website activity and delivering us pop up ads.
But the latest use of complicated algorithms by search engines like Google resembles the ultimate over the shoulder look from big brother.
In an effort to better put you in touch with the information you are searching, search engines have started to place context "relevant" items high in the search list. That is, the search engine tracks both your searches and websites visited and then computes what search results would be the most relevant -- just for you.
This means that even though we might search the same topic, we might both be given a different set of results.
Now most of the time this is good.
If you are hungry for catfish, searching for this crusty fried fatty protein would probably lead to restaurants that are near your home. If you are a health fanatic (read: you aren't familiar with the word "fried") then you might find links to FoodNetwork.com recipes for grilled fish.
Now all of this sounds really helpful.
But instead of the results providing a broad spectrum of information, they are actually providing information that is more focused -- just for you.
Imagine for a moment that you are somewhat of a conspiracy theorist. If you search the word set "birth certificate," you might find yourself immersed in the world of the Birther's and President Obama's long guarded secret certificate. You could have very well been really searching for the office of your local county clerk where you could download a copy of your own vital record.
These types of results are especially concerning in health care.
Now think about this scenario: you are somewhat of a natural and alternative medicine follower. You just returned from visiting your primary care doctor and she gives you your mammogram results. It looks like you might have breast cancer.
You do what most patient's do: you search breast cancer on Google.
Given your past search patterns on health foods, alternative medicine, herbal products, and acupuncture, an article on "prune juice as a cure for breast cancer" pops up. Further search of this bizarre topical combination begins to reinforce your findings: there might be a link for a cure between this fruit juice and a breast malignancy.
So instead of providing a comprehensive analysis of breast cancer treatments, the algorithms have begun to reinforce your preconceived (pre-searched) thoughts on alternative medicine.
Now this isn't an attack on alternative medicine, rather it's meant to demonstrate how the internet can focus one's mind on a solution quickly rather than providing all of the necessary information to make the best decision.
And the scary part? There is very little you can do about it.
These algorithms are proprietary and aren't really subject to easy manipulation. They are meant to reflect who you are and what you generally search for; and they do a very good job.
Yes, you can log off and then log on with another name, try a different browser, search for other types of topics for awhile, or even replace the computer, but because many use the local ip address as the pointer for determining which results to deliver, this would all be done in vain.
Probably the best advice is to cognitively realize that this is happening when you perform a search. So don't stop with the first articles or links that are returned.
Dig deeper and go off the search engine directed path a little. Force Google to go deeper into other topics by continuing to search different but similar keywords.
And know that ultimately you are in charge of your search experience. Don't believe everything you see or hear; have a healthy respect that it's good to challenge the information you are given.
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Friday, June 17, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
What Are the Odds? Why information discovery about cancer on the internet might be like online gambling
By Linda Timmerman, Ed.D.
You might think the first place you visit after being told you have cancer would be to a cancer doctor, or oncologist.
But you'd be wrong.
The first stop for most of us? The internet.
Google any form of cancer, and a plethora of websites are instantly available. Some are good, and some are downright dangerous (but that's for another blog).
We tell ourselves we're looking for information about the disease, where to seek treatment, what types of treatments are available.
But what we really want to know is "what's the prognosis?"
"Can I survive this cancer?"
"What are my chances?"
"How long do I have?"
I remember the evening a friend and colleague called and said, "Can you come over? The doctor says I have esophageal cancer, and my wife and I just need to talk."
Truthfully, I didn't even know there was such a thing as esophageal cancer -- so before grabbing my car keys and husband, I starting Googling.
Unfortunately, my friend and his wife were doing the same thing.
By the time we arrived at their home, they were completely focused on the statistics: the 5-year survival rate ranges from 70% to 5% depending on the stage of the cancer at diagnosis.
His first words were, "this thing is going to kill me."
I certainly advocate knowing everything you can about your disease. Some cancers have low survival rates primarily because by the time symptoms appear the cancer is too entrenched or has spread.
It's the nature of the beast.
But how one copes with and acts on this information is vital, I believe, for every survivor traveling the road to the new normal.
Greg Anderson, diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer and given 30 days to live in 1984, went on to found the Cancer Recovery Foundation. He interviewed over 16,000 cancer survivors who had been told they were "terminal" and shares their wisdom in his book, Cancer: 50 Essential Things To Do.
It's a "must read" for survivors. Cancer, say Anderson, must be dealt with on all levels: physical, psychological, and spiritual.
When I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1997, my first act was to look to the sky and ask, "Oh God, what am I supposed to learn from this?"
On hearing the diagnosis of bladder cancer just last year, my first thoughts were, "Obviously, I'm a slow learner."
To live with cancer, we must know and believe that we can have a quality life and achieve wellness. If the five-year survival rate is 2%, then focus your energy on being in that 2% group.
Emile Coue, a nineteenth century pharmacist in France, encouraged his patients to practice positive affirmation rather than focusing on the fears associated with a serious illness.
His words still ring true: "Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better."
Linda Timmerman, Ed. D. is a two-time cancer survivor and life long educator. She blogs regularly about cancer survival and real information from real people with the disease.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
You might think the first place you visit after being told you have cancer would be to a cancer doctor, or oncologist.
But you'd be wrong.
The first stop for most of us? The internet.
Google any form of cancer, and a plethora of websites are instantly available. Some are good, and some are downright dangerous (but that's for another blog).
We tell ourselves we're looking for information about the disease, where to seek treatment, what types of treatments are available.
But what we really want to know is "what's the prognosis?"
"Can I survive this cancer?"
"What are my chances?"
"How long do I have?"
I remember the evening a friend and colleague called and said, "Can you come over? The doctor says I have esophageal cancer, and my wife and I just need to talk."
Truthfully, I didn't even know there was such a thing as esophageal cancer -- so before grabbing my car keys and husband, I starting Googling.
Unfortunately, my friend and his wife were doing the same thing.
By the time we arrived at their home, they were completely focused on the statistics: the 5-year survival rate ranges from 70% to 5% depending on the stage of the cancer at diagnosis.
His first words were, "this thing is going to kill me."
I certainly advocate knowing everything you can about your disease. Some cancers have low survival rates primarily because by the time symptoms appear the cancer is too entrenched or has spread.
It's the nature of the beast.
But how one copes with and acts on this information is vital, I believe, for every survivor traveling the road to the new normal.
Greg Anderson, diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer and given 30 days to live in 1984, went on to found the Cancer Recovery Foundation. He interviewed over 16,000 cancer survivors who had been told they were "terminal" and shares their wisdom in his book, Cancer: 50 Essential Things To Do.
It's a "must read" for survivors. Cancer, say Anderson, must be dealt with on all levels: physical, psychological, and spiritual.
When I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1997, my first act was to look to the sky and ask, "Oh God, what am I supposed to learn from this?"
On hearing the diagnosis of bladder cancer just last year, my first thoughts were, "Obviously, I'm a slow learner."
To live with cancer, we must know and believe that we can have a quality life and achieve wellness. If the five-year survival rate is 2%, then focus your energy on being in that 2% group.
Emile Coue, a nineteenth century pharmacist in France, encouraged his patients to practice positive affirmation rather than focusing on the fears associated with a serious illness.
His words still ring true: "Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better."
Linda Timmerman, Ed. D. is a two-time cancer survivor and life long educator. She blogs regularly about cancer survival and real information from real people with the disease.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Stonewall Dr,Streetman,United States
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The new pandemic: Will viral social media lead a health care revolution?
As we watch events unfold around the world with social media orchestrated revolution you can see the power that this new media can play in change.
First in Egypt, and now in Libya, millions of people are hearing about democracy and demanding change via smart phones and iPads over the internet.
What started as merely a march toppled a world leader.
So can social media create these same kind of changes in health care?
Today the ability to stay connected almost anywhere in the world has made being "off the grid" almost impossible. Which means that patients and health care providers are almost always able to communicate.
And, effective communication is the key to any health care message.
For years the internet has provided and almost encyclopedic reference for any illness, ailment, treatment, or medication. It is a rare patient that comes into my office that hasn't Googled their problem first.
Our office has free WiFi for patients, so even in the exam room patients can look up our recommendations and interact about conflicting discussions on the internet.
With the advent of online images, patients often compare tumors and rashes with jpegs they find on Flickr. This is their first opinion.
I am their second.
But what we see now going in the world is much deeper. And it offers the opportunity for a revolution in how we interact and disseminate health care information.
And ultimately care for patients.
Though smart phones and iPads, with WiFi and 3G, people can now be connected virtually anywhere in the world. It has made being "off the grid" a dream weekend away for many techno-nerds.
This technology is fascinating in its ability to behave almost like a living creature.
The word "viral" has always been used to describe how messages and content can spread so quickly around the globe. We've all seen those videos that reach a million or so downloads days after they are posted.
Viruses though by nature are not truly "living and breathing." They are merely protein products that rely on transmission from one host to another.
Certainly they can morph and evolve, becoming resistant to treatments and more easily spread, but they never replicate alone and they eventually die with their host.
I would argue that our social media revolution is more than viral. It is becoming living and breathing.
It is becoming alive.
With 500 million or so folks on Facebook, new groups and pages are made every second.
Instantaneous social networks can be created on autism, HIV, depression, and on and on.
Testimonials, treatments, and even tears can be shed together over a continuous interactive stream of discussion.
And it takes on a life of its own.
Never was this more clear than in Egypt. Once the message commenced and the social debate was started, the government shut down the internet, wireless phones, cable television, and even the power to some satellite relay stations.
Yet the revolution continued. It was spread via rumor and from person to person.
Even to people who never participated in Facebook, Twitter, or any internet discussion.
So will we see this in health care communications? I think we will. Is it too far fetched to believe that patients will move beyond just Googling a treatment suggestion in an exam room, to rather posting the idea on Facebook and immediately being able to discuss the concept with friends and family for feedback and suggestions?
Physicians already post diagnostic dilemmas sans personal information on the internet for assistance. So as treatments and plans are discussed will the confluence of information become the new "standard of care" against which we are all measured.
That would mean that the "standard" will be constantly evolving and changing as millions of patients and physicians provide continuous feedback and input.
And will this impact spread beyond the electronic world to effect patients and physicians who have steadfastly refused to participate in social media?
There are certainly dangers involved here. Aside from the privacy concerns, it is clear that without physicians and other health care providers being involved in the process that this standard could evolve into bad medicine and harm for patients.
Imagine if you will that a viral video on antiperspirants causing Alzheimer's creates a national outrage against personal hygiene, Congressional inquiry, and a ban on your favorite roll-on.
Funny? Just Google "phthalates" and "small penis." I think you can see how science and medicine can be influenced by social media. Sometimes with junk science.
So, the take home message here? Social media communication is here, and it will continue to grow and influence how we treat and take care of patients.
It will become alive and self perpetuating regardless if you participate or not.
It's essential that all the parties embrace and participate in the technology. We should welcome patients to examine their care on the internet, and we should encourage physicians to become involved in internet based discussions, groups, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter.
There is an evolution in the doctor-patient relationship and it will revolve around social media interactions.
And it's not a bad thing.
I guess if you are reading this blog you are already participating in social media to some extent. So will these words become viral?
Self interestingly I hope so.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
First in Egypt, and now in Libya, millions of people are hearing about democracy and demanding change via smart phones and iPads over the internet.
What started as merely a march toppled a world leader.
So can social media create these same kind of changes in health care?
Today the ability to stay connected almost anywhere in the world has made being "off the grid" almost impossible. Which means that patients and health care providers are almost always able to communicate.
And, effective communication is the key to any health care message.
For years the internet has provided and almost encyclopedic reference for any illness, ailment, treatment, or medication. It is a rare patient that comes into my office that hasn't Googled their problem first.
Our office has free WiFi for patients, so even in the exam room patients can look up our recommendations and interact about conflicting discussions on the internet.
With the advent of online images, patients often compare tumors and rashes with jpegs they find on Flickr. This is their first opinion.
I am their second.
But what we see now going in the world is much deeper. And it offers the opportunity for a revolution in how we interact and disseminate health care information.
And ultimately care for patients.
Though smart phones and iPads, with WiFi and 3G, people can now be connected virtually anywhere in the world. It has made being "off the grid" a dream weekend away for many techno-nerds.
This technology is fascinating in its ability to behave almost like a living creature.
The word "viral" has always been used to describe how messages and content can spread so quickly around the globe. We've all seen those videos that reach a million or so downloads days after they are posted.
Viruses though by nature are not truly "living and breathing." They are merely protein products that rely on transmission from one host to another.
Certainly they can morph and evolve, becoming resistant to treatments and more easily spread, but they never replicate alone and they eventually die with their host.
I would argue that our social media revolution is more than viral. It is becoming living and breathing.
It is becoming alive.
With 500 million or so folks on Facebook, new groups and pages are made every second.
Instantaneous social networks can be created on autism, HIV, depression, and on and on.
Testimonials, treatments, and even tears can be shed together over a continuous interactive stream of discussion.
And it takes on a life of its own.
Never was this more clear than in Egypt. Once the message commenced and the social debate was started, the government shut down the internet, wireless phones, cable television, and even the power to some satellite relay stations.
Yet the revolution continued. It was spread via rumor and from person to person.
Even to people who never participated in Facebook, Twitter, or any internet discussion.
So will we see this in health care communications? I think we will. Is it too far fetched to believe that patients will move beyond just Googling a treatment suggestion in an exam room, to rather posting the idea on Facebook and immediately being able to discuss the concept with friends and family for feedback and suggestions?
Physicians already post diagnostic dilemmas sans personal information on the internet for assistance. So as treatments and plans are discussed will the confluence of information become the new "standard of care" against which we are all measured.
That would mean that the "standard" will be constantly evolving and changing as millions of patients and physicians provide continuous feedback and input.
And will this impact spread beyond the electronic world to effect patients and physicians who have steadfastly refused to participate in social media?
There are certainly dangers involved here. Aside from the privacy concerns, it is clear that without physicians and other health care providers being involved in the process that this standard could evolve into bad medicine and harm for patients.
Imagine if you will that a viral video on antiperspirants causing Alzheimer's creates a national outrage against personal hygiene, Congressional inquiry, and a ban on your favorite roll-on.
Funny? Just Google "phthalates" and "small penis." I think you can see how science and medicine can be influenced by social media. Sometimes with junk science.
So, the take home message here? Social media communication is here, and it will continue to grow and influence how we treat and take care of patients.
It will become alive and self perpetuating regardless if you participate or not.
It's essential that all the parties embrace and participate in the technology. We should welcome patients to examine their care on the internet, and we should encourage physicians to become involved in internet based discussions, groups, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter.
There is an evolution in the doctor-patient relationship and it will revolve around social media interactions.
And it's not a bad thing.
I guess if you are reading this blog you are already participating in social media to some extent. So will these words become viral?
Self interestingly I hope so.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Dallas, Texas
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)