The internet has indeed changed how people obtain health information. There is so much information out there about every possible ailment. However, it doesn’t take long for a person to stumble upon a site, a blog or online store that puts out confusing information. How does one know what information can be trusted and what information is a cleverly worded sales pitch with little science to back up the claims?

Today Reuters Health released a short synopsis of a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine that examined how people prefer to get health information. The study found that a majority (64%) the subjects had used the internet. Of those, almost 64% had looked up health information. Interestingly, only 24% of those people trusted the information they obtained. Doctors still seem to be the most trusted source for medical information.

Why is this? Is it because that no matter how short the HMOs have made our physician visits, the personal interaction is the most important part of the visit? I think that is part of it.

However, I wonder how the internet can be made more credible. If we try to spice up websites with personal information about doctors and nurses in hopes of making our healthcare sites mimic the personal interaction, will that suffice? I think not.

People want clear, concise, substantiated information about their health. People also want to know their choices about treatment options. They want to know the possible consequences of certain choices. Then they want to take that information to the health professional that knows them best to help them make a decision. Healthcare professionals need to beware… this is just the first step toward the whole dynamic of care being changed.

What do you think people want out of the healthcare information they find on the internet? What are the qualities of good information and bad information?

Technorati tag: