PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12772366

Creating informed consumers and achieving shared decision making.

Qi Rong Huang
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The internet has become a powerful tool to disseminate health information and there are millions of people accessing this free information for a second medical opinion. Consumers seeking information from this resource are more responsible for their own health. However, the quality of health information on the internet varies and there is no simple instrument that can effectively evaluate its quality. OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews recent studies on the validity of instruments or guidelines developed for evaluating health information. It describes government initiatives around the world in establishing quality health information and proposes an alternative way of empowering consumers with reliable health information. It emphasises the importance of the role of primary family physicians in this consumer education process. DISCUSSION: The debate over the quality of health information on the internet and the attempt to use instruments to evaluate the quality of web information are discussed. The relationship between family physicians and consumer informations in this information age is also addressed.

Explore related subjects

Decision MakingHumansInformation DisseminationInternetPatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Qi Rong Huang. 2003. Creating informed consumers and achieving shared decision making.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12772366/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

The contribution of science to risk-based decision-making: lessons from the development of full-scale treatment measures for acidic mine waters at Wheal Jane, UK.

The use of risk-based decision-making in environmental management is often assumed to rely primarily on the availability of robust scientific data and insights, while in practice socio-economic criteria are often of considerable importance. However, the relative contributions to decision-making made by scientific and socio-economic inputs are rarely assessed, and even less commonly reported. Such an assessment has been made for a major remediation project in southwest England, in which some 300 l/s of highly acidic, metalliferous mine waters are now being treated using oxidation and chemical neutralisation. In the process of reaching the decision to commission the treatment plant, a wide range of scientific studies were undertaken, including: biological impact assessments, hydrogeological investigations of the effect of pumping on the flooded mine system, and hydrological and geochemical characterisation, together with integrated catchment modelling, of pollutant sources and pathways. These investigations revealed that, despite the spectacular nature of the original mine water outburst in 1992, the ecology of the Fal estuary remains remarkably robust. No scientific evidence emerged of any grounds for concern over the estuarine ecology, even if mine water were left to flow untreated. However, a rare ecological resource known as "maerl" (a form of calcified seaweed) is harvested annually in the estuary, providing significant revenue to the local economy and underpinning the 'clean' image of local sea water. Social and environmental benefit surveys revealed strong public perceptions that any visible discoloration in the estuary must indicate a diminution in quality of the maerl, to the detriment of both the public image and economy of the area. This factor proved sufficient to justify the continued pump-and-treat operations at the mine site. Although the decisive factor in the end was socio-economic in nature, robust assessment of this factor could not have been made without robust scientific evidence. It is concluded that investment in investigating and contributing to the formation of public perceptions is just as important as investing in scientific investigations per se.

Decision Making↗