A crazy idea everybody’s having: using Wikipedia for health information

Laurent, M., & Vickers, T. (2009). Seeking Health Information Online: Does Wikipedia Matter? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16 (4), 471-479 DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M3059

Back in the day, patients used to show up at doctors’ practices with a set of symptoms. Since the advent of the Internet, though, they show up with a set of symptoms and a diagnosis of their own design. Now, this diagnosis is often concocted using whatever health information they run into while googling their scared asses around the web after the appearance of that skin rush or of that nasty lump. Traditionally, health professionals have expressed their disapproval towards these web-savvy patients who challenge medical diagnosis, multiply clinically-inappropriate requests [1], disrupt physician-patients relationship [2] and ultimately create a widespread climate of « cybercondria » [3].

A recent article published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association deals with this situation in a different way. The basic assumption here is that people do use Wikipedia to find relevant medical information, and that doctors should simply deal with it by contributing to the online encyclopedia. The authors (a PhD student from Leuven, Belgium, and a post-doc at washington University, St. Louis) measured Wikipedia’s ranking on general Internet search engines. The keywords entered were selected from MedlinePlus, NHS Direct Online, and the National Organization of Rare Diseases. The idea is to compare specialised medical databases results with Wikipedia ones and then assess whether article quality influenced this ranking.

And here’s the result: Wikipedia ranked among the first ten results in 71–85% of search engines and keywords tested, surpassing MedlinePlus and NHS Direct Online. This might not come as a surprise, given the fact that the general public is less familiar with the latter services. But the fact is that Wikipedia ranked higher with quality articles, too. The popular open encyclopedia turned out to be particularly good for rare diseases and the page viewed increased parallel to the occurrence of seasonal disorders, news of epidemiological trends and emerging health concerns.

The article is all the more important as it follows in the trend of recent literature highlighting the importance of online collaborative information as tool of empowering for both laymen and health professionals. The simple use of Google, for instance, turns out to lead to the right diagnostics in 58% of the cases [4] and, as far as Wikipedia articles go, although less accurate or less complete in some fields, they show a marked potential for improvement in the short run (less than 90 days) [5].

juillet 8, 2009 | Filed Under body

Comments

8 Responses to “A crazy idea everybody’s having: using Wikipedia for health information”

Marcia on juillet 8th, 2009 10 h 17 min

I don’t see why this is a “crazy” idea. A Wikipedia article is usually easier for the average person to understand than an article in a medical journal, and doctors often use jargon and speak to patients in a way that reinforces the doctor’s presumed “superiority” but does not teach the patient anything. By using Wikipedia – or any other medium that is written in a language that the average person without a professional medical background can understand – to learn about his or her condition, the patient gains more power over his or her own health and medical treatment.

If doctors are concerned about the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, they are free, as the JAMA suggests, to contribute to Wikipedia.
---a on juillet 8th, 2009 11 h 11 min

well of course « crazy » was intended to be ironic. the idea actually makes a lot of sense. apart from empowering the laymen, user-generated health knowledge also poses the question as to how to validate sciece. in peer-reviewed jounals doctors aim for « truth » (at least the best approximation of it at a given time). in wikipedia, on the other hand, authors have to aim for consensus… that’s a hell of an epistemological leap ;)
ResearchBlogging.org on juillet 8th, 2009 12 h 31 min

A crazy idea everybody’s having: using Wikipedia for health information (eng) http://tinyurl.com/loaao8
sjer152 on juillet 8th, 2009 12 h 34 min

RT @ResearchBlogs: A crazy idea everybody’s having: using Wikipedia for health information (eng) http://tinyurl.com/loaao8
sjer152 on juillet 8th, 2009 12 h 34 min

RT @ResearchBlogs: A crazy idea everybody’s having: using Wikipedia for health information (eng) http://tinyurl.com/loaao8
Marcia on juillet 8th, 2009 17 h 46 min

I’ve never written anything for Wikipedia myself, but my understanding is that « consensus » – if by that you mean agreement by other Wikipedia contributors that your contribution will be left in Wikipedia without being changed or deleted – is achieved by backing up your statement with reliable sources. Not that much of a difference. (Other than the potential arguments regarding which sources are reliable.)

Of course that is the ideal version of Wikipedia. The reality is that garbage does get in, which means that the layman needs to be more intellectually active and critical. Then again, the layman ought to be intellectually active and critical when receiving a diagnosis from a doctor.
Arj on juillet 8th, 2009 19 h 11 min

Of course there are potential problems with patients self-diagnosing themselves via online material… just as there are problems with them blindly accepting the diagnoses of time-constrained, condescending M.D.s with close ties to Big-Pharma.
Marcia on juillet 10th, 2009 11 h 30 min

Some patients are self-diagnosing themselves; others are using the web to provide background information so that they can have a better understanding of what the doctor is saying. The article doesn’t seem to distinguish.