I came across a piece in USA Today this week about “Doctors who are not on Facebook, Twitter and blogs risk becoming irrelevant” by Kevin Pho, MD, author of the KevinMD blog. This article prompted the following post.
The Patient-Centered model of care is predicated among other things on physicians factoring in knowledge of the “person behind the patient” into their treatment. That’s means understanding and, where practical, honoring the patient’s beliefs, values and preferences. In order for a communication between a physician and person (patient) to be “patient centered,” it must be congruent with patient preferences for how they want their physician to communicate with them.
So Just How “Patient Centered” Is Social Media?
Let’s consider test result reporting to patients. If you are among the 5% of patients who (in very recent large-scale studies) indicate they want to receive normal test results by e-mail for example, e-mail results reporting is very patient-centered. Only 1% of patients prefer receiving abnormal test results via e-mail. Social media, e.g., e-mail, is not very patient-centered however if you among the other 95% of patients that prefer to be notified of normal and abnormal test results by telephone, snail mail, or in person visits with your doctor. I understand that e-mail is not necessarily considered “social media” like Twitter, Facebook, or blogs, but it is the only “indicator” we have to date in the research literature. I also acknowledge that non-physician blogs and social networking sites such as PatientsLikeMe show great promise in building self care management skills, confidence and support among people with similar chronic disease conditions.
Implications?
This is not to say that physicians should avoid social media when communicating with patients. I am just saying that, according to the evidence, social media is not for everyone at this point. No doubt patient preferences involving social media will evolve with the development of new applications and privacy protections…but we are nowhere near that point yet.
From my vantage point, when it comes to communicating with patients, physicians’ time would be much better spent by:
- Learning what their patient preferences are (with regards to communications, medications, exercise, nutrition, etc.).
- Tailoring conversations with patients during office visits to their preferences and concerns. The evidence shows that by doing, physician can more effectively engage patients, increase patient adherence, reduce cost and improve outcomes and satisfaction.
I have yet to see large scale studies that shows how social media can do that.
FYI, over the past 2 years “2 million Americans have registered to receive personalized safety alerts and recalls by email” for their medicines (http://www.iguard.org/help/about-us/press-releases.html). I think, while thats not specifically test results, its a pretty impressive vote from patients about their communication preferences given that it has grown from nothing in 2 years.
My preference is to meet my doctor in person, ask a few questions, and get answers right then.
It may seem time-consuming, but it also takes time for the doctor or her staff to type letters or emails.
And face-to-face communication gives an opportunity to ask follow-up questions.
The 50 Best Health Blogs
I agree with your thesis. My primary care doc provided me with a form so I could indicate my preference for communicating test results, other info. I liked the question about whether information could be left on a vm message or given to another family member. This same physician (a woman incidentally) has a simple intake sheet that asks why I made the appointment and what has occurred with my health since our last visit. She reviews that before she walks into the exam room. Our 10-15 mins together always seems satisfying as a result.
The issue with the term “email” is that is not a secure communications tool and most people know that. The better approach would be to describe an email or text alert linked to a secure web site page – or something to that effect. But kudos for attempting to look at the data and taking a more scientific approach to understanding issues like this. We need more critical thinking in marketing communications.
Stephen, I disagree with the premise of your post. You seem to confuse social media with email. They are not the same thing.
Social media is a public channel, while email is a private one. Thus, as a public medium, social media is never the place for private information. Email, on the other hand, is often used to communicate private information. I get emails from my lawyer, my bank and my doctors, and do not worry that the contents of such private exchanges will become public.
In addition, the channel alone cannot make a message “patient centered.” That must be inherent in the message, not in its way of delivery.
Hugo thanks for your comments. Twitter and Facebook (e,g., social media) can be as open or as private as the “owner” of the site desires. Blogs are much more public. I cannot conceive of a physician wanting to report or share any kind of information to patients using social media…but evidently others like Dr.Kevin Pho of KevinMD.com do.
The point of the post was that it is consumer or patient preference, not one’s excitement about using a particular form of communication, that should help guide one’s choice of media. You re correct in saying that the channel alone does not make a message patient centered. However it is a big part of the equation. Message relevance (aka patient centeredness) is a function of what the content actually says, who says it, how it is said and when it is said.