Researchers at STSI publish results of online comparative survey
There is no denying that the digital revolution has (finally) arrived in medicine. New tools from genome sequencing to commercially accessible mobile health technologies are challenging the status quo, and ushering in a new era of digital medicine. Services once confined to the doctor’s office, are now beginning to be available online and through mobile phone applications. Resisting the arrival of these technological advances will likely prove futile, but how do consumers and health care providers feel about these new tools and their impact on the doctor-patient relationship?
In an effort to determine attitudes towards new medical technologies, researchers at the Scripps Translational Science Institute (STSI) surveyed a large group of consumers and health care professionals on their opinions towards tools such as smartphones, genetic testing, and electronic medical records. They also posed questions regarding some of the consequences of implementing these tools, such as concerns over privacy, cost, and access to notes written by the doctor after appointments and procedures. Consumer respondents were recruited through WebMD, an open-access website providing health news and advise to the public, while providers were reached via Medscape, a website targeted at physicians and health professionals.
The findings, published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research in September 2015, indicate that the opinions of consumers and health care providers who took part in the survey differ significantly on a number of issues analyzed in the study. “Consumers are becoming more informed in medicine than ever before because of access to information via the internet,” says Dr. Nathan Wineinger, Director of Biostatistics at STSI, and a key contributor to the study. “The survey was designed to delve into how much of a traditional closed healthcare system should remain closed, versus opening it up in light of this growing knowledgeable consumer base,” Dr. Wineinger explains.
While both groups indicated interest in adopting new technologies, consumers were more eager than providers to use new technologies for self-diagnosis of non-life threatening medical conditions. The majority of providers were in favor of professionals making a diagnosis. This feeling of unease towards self-diagnosis is perhaps not surprising. Medical professionals have spent years training and perfecting their craft, while consumers, for the most part, have no formal medical training. On the other hand, the enthusiasm that consumers demonstrate towards adopting new technologies for self-diagnosis indicates a rise in a new, more informed and engaged type of patient, and providers will need to find ways of adjusting to this new relationship dynamic in order to ensure good health outcomes.
Another notable issue that consumers and providers had differing opinions on was on ownership and access to medical health records. While 44% of providers felt they owned their patients’ medical records, 54% of consumers believed that patients owned their own medical record. Approximately 20% of responders from both groups did not know who owned the record. Moreover, despite the fact that both groups felt that patients should have access to view all laboratory and diagnostic test results, providers were more hesitant than consumers to allow patient access to all notes written by a healthcare professional during a visit or procedure. The providers cited concern over patients developing anxiety after accessing health records, as well as a belief that consumer access to health records would result in requests for unnecessary medical evaluations.
Although these two examples seemingly place providers in a more hesitant position when it comes to adopting new technology and reforming the traditional data sharing practices, the survey results also revealed occasions where providers were more open to using digital health technology than consumers. For example, when asked about privacy concerns related to the storage, access, and sharing of medical data online, providers expressed significantly less concern than consumers. There are a few possible explanations for this. One could be that providers understand the data sharing systems better and therefore trust their safety. Another could be that when the perceived level of personal risk is lower, individuals are less likely to feel strongly about a given scenario. Whatever the cause of this difference in opinion, the issue clearly requires further exploration.
The surveys also shed light on attitudes towards the use of genetic testing, physical exams, and radiation exposure.
While it can perhaps be argued that many of the results unearthed by this study stem from attitudes towards change, or where on the technology adoption lifecycle spectrum an individual or group of individuals falls, what is clear is that these attitudes will impact the traditional doctor-patient relationship. However, as the study concludes, rather than allowing these attitudes to hinder rapport, a more engaged and informed consumer base along with improved communication could prove to be an asset to an over-extended healthcare system, and potentially lead to a stronger doctor-patient relationship.