Consumer health informatics and personal health record management

¶ … new issues to light in terms of knowledge and information. The Internet, SmartPhones, and technology have increased the ability for information to be both processed and disseminated. However, this is challenging because it requires that the information be vetted, and that individuals can critically analyze sourcing and context. This is particularly true now that almost everyone has access to health information from websites, popular press, and even blogs (Health on the net, 2013).

When we examine sources, though, we need to take into account the vetting (bias, purpose, etc.) but also the robustness and quality of the sources. The core aspect of this trend in analyzing information is to use critical thinking skills to process information. In general, the basic aspect of critical thinking is to analyze the source material and decide upon its veracity and relevance. Certainly, it is not as easy to read, write, and process critically, one has to think about what one says, how one says it, and whether the arguments are made to buttress the argument, but the idea of critical thinking is a great stimulation to one's own brain and learning. In many cases, clients enter the clinical environment having briefly looked at websites to assess their condition (Austhink, 2008). The danger in this is that they have not been able to diagnose the issue correctly. Getting a proper diagnosis, though, and then researching for further information is quite different.

Helping clients understand online health information can be challenging. The initial steps are to help them understand how to critically look at a document. . For example, not everything posted on the Internet is true; one must read to establish the sources of the material. A critical thinker also uses other senses to establish their opinion of the stimuli, be that visual, audible, or even body-language (in the case of speech, etc.). Using critical thinking to process information requires that you not only analyze the source material "critically," but that you think about the opinions and views being presented. Ask them to be prepared to ask several questions for each site (or book or article) they read: 1) What are the author's credentials? 2) Is the work edited or endorsed by a hospital or healthcare facility, medical school, or professional organization; 3) Are there sources present in the article? 4) Is the article trying to sell something (treatment, cream, vitamin, supplement, etc.)? 5) Never place 100% faith in one article or opinion, particularly from the web. Find other sources to verify and buttress the argument (Powell, et al., 2011; Kesselman, 2008).

For example, one strategy would be to compare and contrast the purpose of the article. Let us say that we are researching acute otitis in children. A preliminary search finds the following using Google:

Using critical thinking, we would highlight the Wikipedia article, knowing that it may or may not be written by a healthcare professional. Certainly, one could "read" or scan Wikipedia about the issue, but it is neither scholarly or 100% valid. Similarly, we look at the other cites: Centers for Disease Control, Medscape, Kids Health, National Institutes of Health, and Pediatrics. Of these, we can deduce that the National Institutes of Health, Pediatrics, and Centers for Disease Control are all professional sources, so we will highlight those as credible:

The Diagnosis and Management of Acute Otitis Media - Pediatrics

Ear infection - acute: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

CDC - Get Smart: Child Otitis Media, Physician Info Sheet

But now we have emedicine and kidshealth. We need to click on these references and we find: 1) Emedicine and Medscape reference is a professional site, run for and by medical personnel. It has citations, medical references, is not selling anything, and has clinical practice guidelines. This should be a credible source; 2) Kidshealth is part of the Nemours foundation, established in 1936 and affiliated with a number of hospitals. While there are no citations, the language used is layperson friendly, with illustrations appropriate to share with children. This would be a valid site to scan for basic information, knowing that it may not always be written by medical personnel.