A little headache and itching. What could be the reason? You google it. It turns out to be the bubonic plague! You hear such anecdotes regularly – also from doctors. Fortunately, the actual diagnosis is usually much more innocent.
This shows that health information on the internet has its pitfalls – and therefore does not have the best reputation. Less than a third of the Swiss trust the information Dr. Google gives them. This is the conclusion of a study by the Sotomo research institute commissioned by the Sanitas Foundation, which is exclusively available to Blick.
“The Subject Is Neglected”
Dr. Google often does. Four out of ten people who are in pain or otherwise unwell receive an initial indication online and 80 percent use digital services such as health websites at least occasionally.
For Felix Gutzwiller (74), chairman of the Sanitas Foundation and former professor of medicine at the University of Zurich, one thing is clear: in the future, digital information options will also become increasingly important in healthcare. “But so far the subject has been more or less neglected,” complained the former Zurich FDP Council of States. The aim of the research is to initiate a social debate on this subject.
Doctors enjoy a high level of trust
Two-thirds of the respondents indicate that they understand the health information well. But there is a lack of confidence. Doctors, on the other hand, trust more than 91 percent of those surveyed, according to the survey. Conventional doctors also trump the internet when it comes to understanding: nine out of ten people indicate that they understand doctors’ information well. Understandability is important: Those who understand their doctor’s explanations “very well” have a 97 percent chance of trusting them.
But even of those who say they understand the doctor rather poorly, more than half still trust him. Not so with the internet: if you don’t understand the information there, you hardly ever trust it.
Certificate can create trust
“The good information on specialized websites must become more reliable,” Gutzwiller demands. And he also has an idea how to do that: a certificate is needed! Gutzwiller refers to the United States, where the Food and Drug Administration has introduced website certification. That would also be a possibility in Switzerland, he thinks. It doesn’t have to be a state stamp: private labels or an official signpost would also be an option.
For Gutzwiller it is crucial that the individual user can see whether the information is useful and meaningful and whether there is a commercial background. Only then can the websites make an important contribution to self-help.
Doctors are also required for certification
The doctors agree. It is often not clear who is behind the information, what interests are being pursued and whether the information is correct at all, says Yvonne Gilli (65), chairman of the FMH Medical Association. For Gilli, the general public’s reticence towards health information from the Internet is “a sign of health literacy.” The association would wholeheartedly support a health information certificate as suggested by Gutzwiller.
But she doesn’t want to demonize the health websites. “Today, digital information supplements the medical consultation.” As a doctor, you yourself have repeatedly referred to other reliable sources of information on the Internet or given instructions, for example using YouTube videos. This has strengthened the competence of the patients.
It is important that incriminating information – such as a serious diagnosis – is never made available without offering a timely consultation with a specialist.