Junior physician's use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND Web 2.0 internet tools and methods have attracted considerable attention as a means to improve health care delivery. Despite evidence demonstrating their use by medical professionals, there is no detailed research describing how Web 2.0 influences physicians' daily clinical practice. Hence this study examines Web 2.0 use by 35 junior physicians in clinical settings to further understand their impact on medical practice. METHOD Diaries and interviews encompassing 177 days of internet use or 444 search incidents, analyzed via thematic analysis. RESULTS Results indicate that 53% of internet visits employed user-generated or Web 2.0 content, with Google and Wikipedia used by 80% and 70% of physicians, respectively. Despite awareness of information credibility risks with Web 2.0 content, it has a role in information seeking for both clinical decisions and medical education. This is enabled by the ability to cross check information and the diverse needs for background and non-verified information. CONCLUSION Web 2.0 use represents a profound departure from previous learning and decision processes which were normally controlled by senior medical staff or medical schools. There is widespread concern with the risk of poor quality information with Web 2.0 use, and the manner in which physicians are using it suggest effective use derives from the mitigating actions by the individual physician. Three alternative policy options are identified to manage this risk and improve efficiency in Web 2.0's use.

[1]  V. Podichetty,et al.  Assessment of internet use and effects among healthcare professionals: a cross sectional survey , 2006, Postgraduate Medical Journal.

[2]  James Beaton,et al.  Google versus PubMed. , 2005, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[3]  Yan Zhang The influence of mental models on undergraduate students' searching behavior on the Web , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[4]  Henrik Eriksson,et al.  Web 2.0 systems supporting childhood chronic disease management: A pattern language representation of a general architecture , 2008, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[5]  Martin Gardner,et al.  Diagnosis using search engines , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Vipul Kashyap,et al.  Creating and sharing clinical decision support content with Web 2.0: Issues and examples , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[7]  Johanna I. Westbrook,et al.  Do online information retrieval systems help experienced clinicians answer clinical questions? , 2005, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[8]  Kristi L. Koenig,et al.  Diagnostic Dilemma? Just Google It? , 2007 .

[9]  Hangwi Tang,et al.  Googling for a diagnosis—use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  Mary Shultz,et al.  Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. , 2007, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[11]  J. Sandars,et al.  Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: an online survey , 2007, Postgraduate Medical Journal.

[12]  Frank Piontek,et al.  DSS in Healthcare: Advances and Opportunities , 2008 .

[14]  Maged N Kamel Boulos,et al.  The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. , 2007, Health information and libraries journal.

[15]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  New horizons for e-learning in medical education: ecological and Web 2.0 perspectives , 2007, Medical teacher.

[16]  Jane E Lacovara When searching for the evidence, stop using Wikipedia! , 2008, Medsurg nursing : official journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses.

[17]  Jon Dron,et al.  Designing the Undesignable: Social Software and Control , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[18]  Jonathan M. Teich,et al.  Grand challenges in clinical decision support , 2008, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[19]  Cynthia LeRouge,et al.  Websites Most Frequently Used by Physician for Gathering Medical Information , 2006, AMIA.

[20]  R. McLean,et al.  The effect of Web 2.0 on the future of medical practice and education: Darwikinian evolution or folksonomic revolution? , 2007, The Medical journal of Australia.

[21]  Soo Young Rieh Judgement of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web , 2002 .

[22]  John Eng,et al.  A comparison of world wide web resources for identifying medical information. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[23]  M J A Turner,et al.  Accidental Epipen injection into a digit - the value of a Google search. , 2004, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[24]  L. Baker,et al.  Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: results from a national survey. , 2003, JAMA.

[25]  N. Bennett,et al.  Physicians' Internet information‐seeking behaviors , 2004, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[26]  J. Wareham,et al.  Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: Tensions and Controversies in the Field , 2008, Journal of medical Internet research.

[27]  Soo Young Rieh Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[28]  Don Fallis,et al.  Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  Alan Bleakley,et al.  Pre‐registration house officers and ward‐based learning: a `new apprenticeship' model , 2002, Medical education.

[30]  Kei-Hoi Cheung,et al.  HCLS 2.0/3.0: Health care and life sciences data mashup using Web 2.0/3.0 , 2008, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[31]  M. Easterby-Smith,et al.  Management Research: An Introduction , 1991 .

[32]  Ken Masters,et al.  For what purpose and reasons do doctors use the Internet: A systematic review , 2008, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[33]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  Beyond logs and surveys: In-depth measures of people's web use skills , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[34]  Les Gasser,et al.  Information quality work organization in wikipedia , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[35]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[36]  Moyez Jiwa,et al.  Does general practice Google? , 2008, Australian family physician.

[37]  Dean Giustini,et al.  How Web 2.0 is changing medicine , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[38]  C. Pope,et al.  Assessing quality in qualitative research , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[39]  Robert Kristofco,et al.  Information‐seeking behaviors and reflective practice , 2006, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[40]  Linda C. Smith,et al.  Information quality work organization in wikipedia , 2008 .

[41]  F. Burstein,et al.  Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1 , 2008 .

[42]  Mark Taubert Use of Google as a diagnostic aid , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[43]  Kimberly E Applegate,et al.  Learning Radiology: A Survey Investigating Radiology Resident Use of Textbooks, Journals, and the Internet , 2007 .

[44]  Miriam J. Metzger Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[45]  L. Verbrugge Health Diaries , 1980, Medical care.