Digital communications bring opportunity and risk to the therapeutic relationship. Doctors and other health professionals can learn to collaborate in person and online to protect informed decision making. Modified slightly from a talk August 8 2019 at Brigham & Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
2. Disclosures
Partner, Radiation Oncology Associates PA
Stock in
Dr. Reddy Laboratories
Healthcare Services Group
Mazor Robotics
U.S. Physical Therapy
No other disclosures for other healthcare or social
media companies
3. Keys to Shared Decision Making
Patient knowledge
Explicit encouragement of patient participation
Appreciation of the patient's ability to play an active
role in decision
Awareness of choice
Time
Fraenkel & McGraw, J Gen Intern Med 2007
4. Keys to Shared Decision Making
Patient knowledge
Explicit encouragement of patient participation
Appreciation of the patient's ability to play an active
role in decision
Awareness of choice
Time
Access to accurate information
Trust in the source of information
6. “Medical legitimacy arises from both collective expertise and individual trust”
Problematic Trends:
•Increasing corporatization of medicine
•Decline in physician autonomy in healthcare organizations
•Decline in public trust of organizations
•Rise of alternate sources of “authority” easily found online
7.
8. Why Doctors Need to Be Online
• Patients and caregivers are increasingly
online, seeking help and support
• If clinicians don’t engage online, expect more
influence on health decisions by
• Peers and family
• Fearmongerers, opportunists
• Industry (Direct-to-consumer)
• Government
9. Hippocrates Maimonides
“Into whatsoever houses I enter,
I will enter to help the sick”
“Grant me the strength, time
and opportunity always to
correct what I have acquired,
always to extend its domain;
for knowledge is immense
and the spirit of man can
extend indefinitely to enrich
itself daily with new
requirements.”
Your oath holds true wherever you extend your domain
10. Overview
Doing nothing hurts patients and doctors
Organizing online may counteract misinformation
Opportunities for action and research
11. Accessing Health Information
Traditional Flexner Model
“Doctor Knows Best” as the trusted professional
Competing Information Sources
Peers
Direct to Consumer Advertising
Healthcare Industry
Alternative Medicine Industry
Press/Media
PubMed
12. Fake News
Fabricated stories create confusion
64% great amount, 88% some or great
More confusion for
Higher income, higher education, younger age
61% only somewhat or not confident they can
identify fake news
23% have shared fake news
Pew Research, 12/2016N=1002
13. Source: Katie Forster, http://www.independent.co.uk/
• >50% of top 20 stories in 2016 with “cancer” in headline were false
• Top story = dandelions boost immunity, cure cancer
14. Prostate Cancer on YouTube
Analyzed 150 English language videos
75 “prostate cancer screening”
75 “prostate cancer treatment”
Assessed with validated instruments
DISCERN for quality, bias
PEMAT to evaluate understandability, actionability
Subset of 50 analyzed with Flesch-Kincaid readability of
written transcripts
Calculated Pearson correlation coefficients between
content quality and views, thumbs up
Loeb et al, Eur Urol 2019
15. Prostate Cancer on YouTube
77% with potentially misinformative or biased content
6.4 million unique viewers
19% discuss complementary medicine
27% with commercial bias
Median 12th grade level content
Negative correlation between scientific quality and
views/month (-0.24, p=0.004)
thumbs up/view (-0.20, p=0.015)
Loeb et al, Eur Urol 2019
16. Rumor Dissemination on Twitter
126,000 rumor cascades shared by 3M Twitter
accounts, 2006-2017
All assessed by six fact-checking organizations
Cascade = unique tweets only, retweets measure
‘depth’
~10% science & technology topics
Analyzed diffusion dynamics of cascades by true, false
or ‘mixed’ content
Vosoughi et al, Science 2018
17. False rumors spread farther, faster
False, mixed rumors had
higher % 1-1000
cascades
True rumors take six times
as long to reach 1500
people
Users spreading false news
had fewer followers
Vosoughi et al, Science 2018
CCDF = fraction of rumors
with certain # of cascades
18. Direct to Consumer Advertising (DTCA)
Survey of 348 DFCI patients w/breast, hematologic
malignancies receiving chemotherapy or seen at follow-up
within 3 months of treatment
Prompted about DTCA exposure in past 12 months
Analyzed awareness, categorized many responses as
agree/disagree assessing
Bivariate associations evaluated with Pearson’s chi-square,
Logistic regression to assess influences on awareness of
DTCA
Estimated DTCA yield (Awareness x Discussion x Rx Δ)
Abel et al, J Clin Oncol 2009
19. DTCA undermines Provider Trust
Cohort
87% female, 64% >50 years, 93% Caucasian
74% breast cancer, 25% hematologic, 1% other
65% ranked care 10 on 1-10 scale
86% aware of cancer-related DTCA
21% via internet vs. >2/3 for TV, magazine*
Multivariate: Awareness associated with
TV exposure of 3+ hours/day (OR 2.08, 95%CI 1.01-4.31)
Increasing age (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.87)
Abel et al, J Clin Oncol 2009*Caveat: Before social media
20. DTCA undermines Provider Trust
17.3% discussed DTCA with treating clinician
96.2% satisfied with conversation
19.2% received prescription for advertised medication
Estimated prescription ‘yield’ of DTCA = 2.9%
Abel et al, J Clin Oncol 2009
Perceptions Stratified by Education
21. Cancer Center Advertising
Cancer centers: $173M on ads
in 2014
35 NCI-cancer centers:
$900 - $13.9M
Ads highlight benefits more
than risks (27% vs 2%)
Vater et al, Annals Int Med 2014
Vater et al, Annals Int Med 2016
Organization $M in 2014
Cancer Treatment Ctrs of America 101.7
MDACC 13.9
MSKCC 9.1
Fox Chase 3.5
22. Radiation Oncology
Unknown even to other health professionals
MS4
(n=404)
PCP
(n=43)
Did RO
Rotation
(n=42)
Radiation almost always palliative 11% 16% 2%
Can’t re-irradiate the same area 12% 33% 10%
Patient emits low levels of radiation after EBRT 49% 34% 14%
Radiation not used in pediatric cancer because
of second malignancy risk
24% 14% 7%
Estimate risk of 2nd malignancy is <2% annually 61% 64% 86%
Zaorsky et al, IJROBP 2016
24. Organize Health Professionals Online
Hypothesis: Coordinated efforts to
counteract misinformation are more effective
Strategy
Find people with similar interests
Organize, train them to communicate effectively
Inoculate public against misinformation that
undermines informed health decisions
25. Harnessing Free Time
People can use free time
to collaborate online
Lower barriers for social
action
Elements for Success
Means
Motive
Opportunity
Culture
26. Means: Sutton’s Law
Why go online to provide health
information? Because that’s where people
look for it
29. Twitter: Public, open access
Digital
Content
Websites
Public
Patient
Centric
Doctor
Centric
Mobile
Apps
Texting EHR
30. Hashtags as interactive channels
# = hashtag
#breastcancer creates searchable information stream with
that term
Listen, participate in public conversations about
health
Can create communities of interest
Open platforms permit all stakeholders to participate
41. Culture
Ability to communicate necessary but insufficient
Digital communications should
Reflect our commitment to patients
Favor collaboration, education over promotion
Components
Individual
Communities/Organizations
42. Communication & Social Media Should
Complement or
improve your clinical
practice of medicine
Maintain, build trust
Enrich your life rather
than becoming a
perceived necessity
Patient-Doctor DyadPatient Doctor
43.
44. What the Public Expects
• Quality as clinician
• Workmanship
• Citizenship
Professionalism based upon
• Confident
• Reliable
• Composed
• Accountable
• Dedicated
Doctors* expected to be
* Applies to all professionals Chandratilake et al, Clin Med 2010
45. Conflicts of Interest – Who to Trust?
44.3% of hematologist-oncologists on Twitter had
>$1000 in industry payments in 2014
67-83% of nonprofit patient advocacy organizations
receive funding from for-profit industry
Tao et al, JAMA Intern Med 2017
Rose et al, JAMA Intern Med 2017
McCoy et al, NEJM 2017
49. Digitally Ready, Maintaining Values
Self-organizing, rapid experimentation, collect data
Guidelines for speed, experimentation that maintain
integrity
Transparency, accountability at all levels
Develop systems to identify and prevent abuses
Westerman et al, MIT Sloan Management Review, 2019
50. What can we do now?
Encourage ethical people to be active online
Amplify their voices
Introverts, Ambiverts also thrive
Identify potential leaders, collaborators
Listen and learn how others communicate
Patients, caregivers
Misinformation sources
Trusted sources
Collaborate, share quality health content
Research Collaboration
51. Research Questions
What communication strategies work best for informed
decision making?
Disease-specific, patient-specific?
Do hashtags organize content and communities of
interest?
How do digital doctors learn effective public
communication?
How do we identify and counteract misinformation
quickly?
How do we organize and pool resources effectively?
52. Why We Must Try
“The secret of the care of the patient
is in caring for the patient” – Francis Peabody
53. Summary
Patients deserve reliable, understandable health
information
Doctors deserve training for the digital era
Inaction risks erosion of the therapeutic relationship
54. Thank you
Dr. Haas-Kogan, Dr. Martin, Dr. Nguyen
Social media collaborators
Questions?
Please contact me at @subatomicdoc
Editor's Notes
Great to be visiting
24 years ago started radiation oncology career with Dr. Baldini on a lung cancer research project
Printing press: Reinforced and undermined Monarchy, Catholic Church
Computers, esp. mobile: Democratizing global communications but challenging political systems and science
Fiduciary responsibility
Commitment to help patients, regardless of location
Requires reinventing medicine to relearn how to serve the needs of patients
2% of true rumors reach 100 cascades vs. 8-9% of false, mixed rumors
Different area: potentially misleading information through advertising
41-item survey, amalgam of validated instruments and some unique questions
Emotion > Information in ads
Obtained information from multiple sources
Expenditures adjusted into 2014 dollars for comparison
890 cancer centers studied, 20 cancer centers accounted for 86% of all advertising.
DFCI ranked #8, $1.8M
- Survey of U.S. medical students years 1 and year 4 and PCPs.
- 4004 surveyed, 26% response rate.
- Questions ranged from knowledge about radiation therapy to clinical situations for its use.
We can't afford to be silent, but we also need to learn how to communicate well because we're at a disadvantage trying to share the truth
Variety of different ways to reach people. I’m just focusing on one potential route, social media.
Our Opportunity: Health Professionals are Trusted.
We are also more trusted than others in healthcare. Healthcare executives only receive high trust from 36%. Other data also show many people do not trust online information
>750,000 tweets
Hashtags let you “narrowcast” and create communities based upon interest
- Why shouldn’t every disease have ability to create community?
My motive: aggregate people to find the right ones willing to form a team. First is getting people into the same space.
14,371 participants, 155,000 tweets.
Started with monthly journal club
Be more than just a radiation oncologist
- An influential Oregon E.R. physician on Twitter, Esther Choo, shared this tweet in early May. Feel good story but gives a first initial and a memorable story.
- Reshared by189 others and set off a viral cascade of other health professionals sharing their own stories. ~45K in 2018, mostly around the event itself
- Twitter Tailwinds in NEJM July 2018
Need to interact with people with different opinions, perspectives
Radiation oncology risks missing the opportunity to become better known and understood.
Exclusion: academics in blue
Inclusion: academics green, community MDs red, other HCPs yellow/orange, patients/advocates blue
As long as we put the patient first, we’ll find strategies and tactics that work.