With the advent of the Internet, everyone has the opportunity to have access to a huge amount of information with its attendant positive and negative aspects. Users feel able and empowered to search the web without the support and advice of an expert.
This is even more so in the health field, where anxiety, hypochondria and fears are greater.
According to IQVIA Italy, more than 80 percent of Italians search for information about their health: survey results show that the middle age group (45-55 years old) is the most active in searching for health information (87 percent), followed by the over-55s (85 percent).
"On the Internet symptoms and pathologies are the most searched topics (64 percent of cases), followed by lifestyles, for example diet and nutrition (55 percent). But people also turn to the keyboard to better understand the dosage of a drug and any contraindications (43%), while searches on supplements (29%) and specialist medical centers to turn to (28%) fall to the last places. On a gender level, when it comes to health, women consult the web much more often (41%) than men (21%)." From Dr. Google vs. Doctors
The inordinate use of Dr. Google, as it is called here, has spawned a diatribe and conflict that seems irremediable between the virtual assistant and flesh-and-blood doctors.
It is clear how using the Internet is quick, always considered reliable and easy to consult, but it is also clear how it depends on so many variations (the one who uses it, veracity of information etc.) that it is a dangerous tool, especially in a sensitive field like medicine.
Again according to the IQVIA survey, in fact, 60 percent of Italians then turn to their general practitioner for more information on the symptoms and treatment of a disease, prevention strategies, and medications and therapy. While to the specialist doctor and pharmacist citizens turn in 27 percent of cases.
The other faction sees precisely the physicians, who rightly feel professionally belittled when the patient comes to the office with an incorrect diagnosis.
The concept that must pass is that: dr. Google is not a graduate (unlike physicians).
He is not infallible; in fact, he is very often wrong.
As found by an Edith Cowan University study published in The Medical Journal of Australia-which looked at the various "responses" of specialized health and medical sites-asking the Internet to diagnose illness based on symptoms is not exactly the best solution, quite the contrary.
The correct diagnosis comes in 30 percent of cases, while two out of three times the "answers" are wrong if not downright dangerous.
To blame patients because they seek information about their own health would be wrong. Rather, it is appropriate to make an analysis of why people search on Google rather than contact an expert.
As mentioned earlier, access to information is much faster than the classic phone call to the doctor, who often finds himself or herself unable to communicate due to busy schedules. Fear, panic, and bad thoughts travel in the fast lane over reason and find the ideal supportive friend in the world of the Web, which also runs fast.
Therefore, it is important to reevaluate the relationship between doctor and patient, which can no longer be what it used to be, made up of appointments and waiting: the patient increasingly wants to be involved in decisions about his health. He needs constant support made up of empathy but also speed.
Pandemic, in this sense, has made it very clear to us: medicine will increasingly need technology to reach its patients, but technology must be used intelligently.
Lockdown and distancing in general have prompted many physicians (and many patients) to look at this new approach with confidence, even finding that it is sometimes more effective and faster than traditional methods. So one should not only criticize the famous virtual doctor, one should instead fight it with common sense, supervise and educate it properly, make sure that it is as reliable as possible, and above all induce the patient to then go to the authorized facilities deputed to the required treatment. At the same time make the doctor-patient experience more usable, fulfilling, and quick.
The two "doctors" should not eliminate each other; it is necessary to take the positive aspects of each, keeping in mind that the focus of the matter must remain the health and well-being of the patient.