More than one-third of U.S. adults use Internet to diagnose medical condition

Closeup of guy working on a laptop indoor / iStockphoto

Thirty-five percent of U.S. adults have gone online to self-diagnose a medical condition that they or someone they knew had, according to a new survey.

The latest findings from Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project were published on Jan. 15, and also showed that 81 percent of U.S. adults use the internet. In addition, 59 percent of the adult population looks up health information online, but 39 percent of those searches were for someone else.

The results were derived from a nationwide survey of 3,014 adults living in the U.S. over both landlines and cell phones. Interviews were conducted between Aug. 7 and Sept. 6, 2012.

Most people -- 82 percent -- start searching using search engines like Google, Bing and Yahoo. Thirteen percent went straight to a website that focuses on health information like WebMD, and only two percent used Wikipedia. One percent relied on Facebook and other social networks.

Women were more likely to search the Internet for their health condition, as well as younger people and white adults. In addition, those who live in households earning $75,000 or more and those with a college degree or advanced degree went online to look up whtat they had.

Out the people who said they went online to help find out what they or someone else was suffering from, 46 percent said what they found online led them to believe they needed help from a medical professional. Another 38 percent said they thought they could treat it at home, and 11 percent say it was in between.

However, less than half -- 41 percent -- said that a doctor confirmed the diagnosis they made from online research. Thirty-five percent said they did not seek a professional opinion, and 18 percent said the medical professional or clinician did not agree with what they thought or had a different opinion about their condition.

Only 1 percent of those diagnosed said talking to a medical professional was "inconclusive."

• Have a pressing medical question? There's an app for that
• An app that can save lives

The authors emphasized that clinicians are still an important source where people can get more insight into their medical conditions, and most of that needs to be done in person. Seventy percent of U.S. adults got information, care or support from a medical professional, while 60 percent got help from friends and family. Twenty-four percent relied on those who had the same health condition.

"It is important to note what these findings mean -- and what they don't mean," the authors noted. "Historically, people have always tried to answer their health questions at home and made personal choices about whether and when to consult a clinician. Many have now added the internet to their personal health toolbox, helping themselves and their loved ones better understand what might be ailing them. This study was not designed to determine whether the internet has had a good or bad influence on health care. It measures the scope, but not the outcome, of this activity."

Physician Ted Eytan, a Washington-based director of the Permanente Federation which is part of Kaiser Permanente, told USA Today that doctors need to listen to patients concerns, even if they got them from the Internet. Instead of fearing the potential misdiagnoses from online information, medical professionals should point patients towards reliable online sites using e-mails and other resources.

"Sometimes they (patients) don't get it right, but that's what we're here for," Eytan said.

[jdel58]

2 percent wikipedia? I bet. I have found a lot of info on wikipedia and it leads to other sources so you find out more.

[SeriouslyD]

Sad there is no mention of Medlineplus.gov in this article, one of the most useful, most extensive online resources for consumer health. Physicians and nurses don't seem to refer patients to online or even local resources such as patient education libraries that are attached to or associated with some hospitals, or to the local public library's reference librarians. Doctors are absolute fools to think patients are satisfied with the pittance of information they receive there. Doctors should at least be willing to review information the patient went to the trouble to bring in. Funny but appalling: years ago, before the Internet, a customer came into the library and asked how to find out what foods had vitamin K in them - he was new on a blood thinner and was told to avoid foods with vitamin K, but the moron doctor didn't have a list! The doctor got paid for the appointment and didn't care enough to ensure the poor patient was able to follow instructions. Doctors and medical groups need to take responsibility for giving patients reliable sources of information, because many patients are no longer going to passively sit around until the doctor makes him come in for an pricey appointment that doesn't even provide enough time to ask, much less answer, the person's questions.

[zyx-xyz]

Assuming one is reasonably well educated and can synthesize information from multiple medical web sites (e.g., mayo clinic, NIH, etc.), and further assuming one is not a hypochondriac, then using the internet can be helpful especially when faced with primary care doctors who --- rather than figuring out what is going on with you --- are instead more interested in making sure they see 19 or 20 patients per day in order to maximize their insurance receipts. After all, seeing a patient for 35 minutes, versus 5 minutes, does not increase money into the physician's pocket if the underlying illness treated is the same, so it's much better for the physician to spend 5 or 10 minutes max on any single patient, if possible. My primary care doctor, for years, brushed off my high blood pressure (150/100+) as "oh, you were probably rushing to come here, and patients in a clinic always exhibit elevated pressure due to 'white-coat syndrome', so you're just fine." Recently when I went in for my first cardiology exam, come to find out that I have an enlarged right ventricle probably a result of decades of untreated high blood pressure. So this tells you: NEVER ACCEPT A PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN'S COMMENT AS DEFINITIVE. USE WHATEVER RESOURCES --- INTERNET, SECOND OPINION, MEDICAL SPECIALIST(S) --- YOU CAN. BECAUSE MOST DOCTORS ARE NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR HEALTH. AND YES, THIS INCLUDES THE INTERNET.

[cid404]

Dr. Eytan needs to get his Kaiser physicians on the same page.

I've been told by Kaiser Doctors on at least 3 occasions, "Don't read that internet stuff, those people don't know what they're talking about."

And this was when I was referring to printed articles from CDC, Mayo Clinic and other credible sources.

[cid404]

Dr. Eytan needs to get his Kaiser physicians on the same page.

I've been told by Kaiser Doctors on at least 3 occasions, "Don't read that internet stuff, those people don't know what they're talking about."

And this was when I was referring to printed articles from CDC, Mayo Clinic and other credible sources.

[MacPatton]

"Sometimes they (patients) don't get it right, but that's what we're here for," Eytan said... Yes but many times the doctors don't get it right or say/think she is just a menopausal woman just complaining. But, in fact she has kidney cancer and will die in 20 months.

[Ingrown_Brainnail]

Honestly, I think physicians should look up their diagnoses on the internet with the patient and use the materials as a way to discuss the diagnosis. Many general care practitioners get faced with new health problems they may have addressed for a minute or two during their education, and not know enough to forward a patient on to a specialist. Such a review of general knowledge could safety net patients form holes in their doctor's knowledge. I accompanied my friend to the doctor because he's got a phobia of doctors, and the lady pretty much preyed on him, asserting that she knew what was going on, "it's healing you'll be fine" and he was too scared to question her. The third time he went, and dragged me along, I got angry, berated her, insisted she send him to a specialist, an he ended up getting a $10,000 surgery for a problem that would never heal on its own. If they had reviewed webMD together rather than her having a power trip over Mr. scaredypants the social problems would have been eliminated and she would have thought twice because the WebMD and Wikipedia entries referred to the wound type as "rarely to never" healing on its own. Let's successfully USE information rather than complain about people not having it or misusing it.