With the advancement
of Web 2.0 tools, web pages are now user-centric and support the participation
of individuals, facilitating their exchange of information. WebMD is an example of a Web 2.0 tool that was
created to provide a platform that supports the interaction of
individuals, facilitating their exchange information. These interactions
and exchanges are providing not only information and advice, but also emotional
support (Hall, Stellefson, & Bernhardt, 2012).
However, there are risks involved with the use of
these innovative technologies. It
is imperative that they are used ethically, professionally, responsibly.
Some of the possible risks are violations of privacy and
confidentiality or inaccurate self-diagnosis. I have established five criteria for
evaluating a Web 2.0 tool that are fashioned from the recommendations of Hall,
Stellefson, and Bernhardt (2012). The
evaluation involves the “who, what, where, when, and why" questions. The evaluation criteria can assist consumers in
using them more confidently and safely (Hall, Stellefson, & Bernhardt,
2012).
First, individuals can evaluate the Web 2.0
tool by asking who questions. Who
is the author of the information and what are their credentials? Is the author
qualified to be providing the information? Examining the credentials of the author
can help to determine whether the author or organization has the required expertise
and training to provide the information (Hall, Stellefson, & Bernhart,
2012).
What questions. What is the
websites source of money? The source of a Web site’s funding should be
provided. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH,
2014), explains that websites with addresses ending in “.gov,” are funded by
the U.S. government, while website ending in “.edu” are sponsored by educational
institutes. Noncommercial organizations
often use website addresses ending in “.org.” A website ending in “.com” suggests
that it is backed by a commercial organization. The source of a websites funding
can provide a clue of what the websites purpose is and what the owner wants to
accomplish on the site (NCCIH, 2014).
Where questions. Where did the information come from? Are the sources of information on the website
provided? Are they reliable sources of information? Is the information a result of evidence-based
studies? Or is information from member’s experiences, based on testimonials, or
authors opinions?
When questions. When was the website created? When was the information last updated? Healthcare information is constantly changing at
an increasingly rapid pace. Therefore, any health or medical information found
on the internet should be updated regularly.
Why
questions. Why was the website created? Is it for providing
reliable health education, supporting awareness, and fostering healthy relationships
between the members and provider? Or is the goal to promote and sell a product?
WebMD Message Boards
are an example of an online health community (OHC), a Web 2.0 tool that
provides a platform for information exchange. OHC can encourage autonomy and self-care (Huh, Marmor, & Jiang,
2016). I have used the five criteria
of evaluating WebMD Message Boards based on the questions who, what, where,
when and why. The results of my evaluation
are below:
Who is the author of the information and
what are their credentials? According to WebMD (2016) Terms and Conditions of Use, the information is provided solely by community
members who are not required to have any qualifications. The information is not authored by or edited by
WebMD staff. Any information or advice
provided within the communities should never replace the instructions or
recommendations of a qualified healthcare provider (WebMD, 2016).
What is the websites source of money? WebMD
(2016) uses advertisement to fund its operations, which allow consumers to
access the information for free. According to their policies, they are not
responsible for, and do not recommend the advertised content (WebMD, 2016).
Where did the information come from? The information provided on WebMD is a collection
of contributions from OHC members. The
information found within OHCs is from member’s experience and advice. WebMD (2016) claims no responsibility of the
information and instructs members to never use the information in place of a
qualified doctor’s instructions (WebMD, 2016).
When? When the information within the
communities was written depends on the member’s contributions. Each posting is
stamped with a date and time. OHC members
should always check when the information was added to the site.
Why? The WebWD OHC’s are a platform that
can offer members the ability to exchange information, experience, and
support. This can offer individuals an
opportunity to connect with other people with similar experiences and find emotional
support and personal advice.
WebMD
clearly labels it website pages, notifying member that the information that is
provided within the community is authored and edited only by OHC members and
should not be used in place of a qualified physician’s advice. According to Huh, Marmor, and Jiang (2016) the
use of moderators within the communities stopped in January 2013, possibly
because they were deterring individuals from participating. If used correctly, WebMD OHC can offer
individuals emotional support and comfort as they manage their health. However,
WebMD should never be used as a more credible source of medical information or
advice (Huh, Maromr, and Jiang, 2016).
Lessons Learned
The
growth of the internet has contributed to changes in how people are finding and
exchanging information. This phenomenon is evident especially in how people are
searching and exchanging healthcare information. The information available on the internet was
once provided in a one-directional relationship using Web 1.0 tools. The users searched and received information
that was published on websites, and that was where the process ended. The
advancement of these tools has provided an environment that can foster
independence, emotional support, and advice from community member that are
living with similar health conditions.
OHCs
were developed to connect patients to others with similar disease processes in
an attempt to provide emotional and informational support. While some
communities such as WebMD have experimented with incorporating paid moderators
to foster strong discussions, it was removed because it is believed that the
the community's exchanges were sought because they were not governed by medical
professionals.
Health
information on WebMD can be accessed freely and therefore can create more equal
and widespread distribution of information. In my evaluation of WebMD's
communities, I believe that it is creating a platform for communities to develop
and individuals can find the support and information exchange they are looking
for without the governance of a professional. As long as users read the
policies that are openly posted and do not seek professional consultation,
WebMD is a great tool for health information consumers.
References
Hall,
A. K., Stellefson, M., & Bernhardt, J. M. (2012). Healthy aging 2.0 the
potential of new media and technology. Retrieved from: www.medscape.com/viewarticle/761515_2
Huh,
J., Marmor, R., & Jiang, X. (2016). Lessons learned for online health
community moderator roles: A mixed methods study of moderators resigning from
WebMD communities. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(9), e247.
doi:10.2196/jmir.6331
National
Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH, 2014). Finding and
evaluating online resources. Retrieved from: https://nccih.nih.gov/health/webresources
WebMD
(2016). Terms and conditions of use. Retrieved from: https://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-terms-and-conditions-of-use
