Health 2.0. It’s all that people can talk about some days in the online health world. It has no definition, though, it’s not much more than the nebulous “Web 2.0,” except topic-specific.

The September 6, 2007 edition of The Economist takes a stab at its take on Health 2.0:

Millions are now logging on to contribute information about topics stretching from avian-flu pandemics to the extraction of wisdom teeth or the use of acupuncture to overcome infertility. You could call it user-generated health care, or Health 2.0.

In some ways this is nothing new. The BrainTalk Communities, an online support group for neurology patients, began in 1993. But content now comes in different forms, such as blogs and videos, and there are many more contributors. More than 20% of American internet users have created some sort of health-related content, according to Jupiter, a market-research firm.

It’s a good read (and not just because I was quoted for the article!) because it puts some much-needed perspective into the hype machine that so many generate around the “2.0″ bubble. Little of this is new. Yes, some of the technology for sharing is new(er), but people have been “sharing” everything online (and I do mean everything) long before Facebook, Myspace, or some health-oriented take on all of this.

Some of the concerns I often hear from reporters is, “Is this stuff any good? Is it accurate? Isn’t putting a whole bunch of people together and getting them talking about healthcare dangerous?”

A lot of user-generated health information is accurate. A panel of neurology specialists judged that only 6% of information posted in the epilepsy-support group of BrainTalk was factually wrong, according to a study published in 2004 in the British Medical Journal. And with enough people online, misinformation is often quickly corrected. Inaccurate posts on the website of the Association of Cancer Online Resources (ACOR), for example, will be pointed out within two hours, says Gilles Frydman, the founder of the association, based in New York.

So, in a nutshell, no, it’s not danger and yes, it is accurate.

It helps people understand their options better, get emotional support for some very trying times, and feel better about the healthcare choices they make.

That’s what “Health 2.0″ is about. And that’s what sites like Psych Central, NeuroTalk and ACOR have been doing since the early 1990s.

 


Comments


View Comments / Leave a Comment

This post currently has 1 comments.
You can read the comments or leave your own thoughts.


    Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 11 Sep 2008
    Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.

APA Reference
Grohol, J. (2007). Health 2.0 in The Economist. Psych Central. Retrieved on October 25, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/09/11/health-20-in-the-economist/

 

Recent Comments
  • John M. Grohol, Psy.D.: We criticize unethical practices here all the time. Sometimes our choice of language is...
  • L: I’m curious about why the comments about how incongruous it is to find the statement “you are an...
  • Tru Le: The truth is, when you are “in nature” (inside the matrix), pain is certain and suffering is...
  • carla: Some good and some trite and some wrong advice. A victim can be completely innocent and not needing to face...
  • Alexis: I am so glad I finally looked more into this. I started having panic attacks at the end of this past July due...
Subscribe to Our Weekly Newsletter


Find a Therapist
Enter ZIP or postal code