Social Media and its Dual Effect on Healthcare

Health professionals becoming more active on social media platforms (as health professionals, not just as people) creates a fascinating situation: patient empowerment through increased information accessibility and increased transparency but also an increased potential for mistrust and the harmful generalization of an individual's opinion. Medicine is a field often characterized by a lack of transparency and a disconnect between patient and provider, where the patient’s concerns may be invalidated within the field for a multitude of reasons. Thus, undoubtedly, having providers directly discuss aspects of the field (education of certain disorders, perspective on social issues within the field, etc.) in a very public space creates ample opportunity to improve the medical model, especially within the power dynamic between patients and doctors. This dynamic is described well in "Not All of Us are Saints" by David Hilfiker when he claims that “The medical model itself, in which the doctor does for and does to the patient, is an inherently disempowering one.” This quote describes a disconnect between patient and doctor that is formed due to the roles of each person (patients are there to receive a doctor’s help, which is a vulnerable position in and of itself) as well as other factors such as education (doctors have the ability to understand the situation in a way that may not be possible for patients) and fear (the patient’s problem may cause them fear, or their fear may stem from the idea of being dismissed by a doctor).

As mentioned previously, one potential harmful impact is the issue of generalization of a personal viewpoint or opinion. There are increasingly more and more medical professionals online, but some are particularly popular. Issues can arise when one’s actions or opinions on certain diagnoses, situations, patients, or even political situations are generalized to the medical system as opposed to that particular physician. This means that one professional’s poor judgment on a post could change someone’s viewpoint on the medical model itself. For example, videos have appeared where health professionals have made fun of patients or shamed them in a video meant to be funny. Even a video as simple as a doctor joking about patients who rank their pain as higher than it seemingly is can have this type of effect. Despite the initial intent, naturally, the video creates a sense of shame for patients, especially those in similar situations to the ones being mocked. While those professionals were punished in some fashion, the damage was done as soon as the video was posted. How can you not look at the medical system differently after that video? How can you not wonder whether your nurse, doctor, receptionist, pharmacist, etc., are thinking the same things about you? The barrier of judgment created by videos like these is undeniable and harmful, especially for those who already have reservations about seeing a doctor. This situation is clearly harmful on the professional’s end; however, most situations are less clear-cut.

People who work in healthcare (almost always) promote vaccines and promote the treatments they feel are most helpful to their patients. This makes complete sense because, after all, it is their job to recommend the treatments they deem most effective. Where this gets complicated is whether doctors should advocate for increased vaccination, increased testing, and potentially increased consideration or decreased consideration of procedures like abortions using their platform. 1. This might increase the number of people reaching out for some of these things. 2. This can help lower stigma against certain treatments or tests. 3. This can help people become more educated on the process and purpose of these things, increasing patient autonomy. 4. This might isolate or push people against some of these things away from medical care. This last impact is particularly interesting to me because it represents an inevitable impact of being online. People have different opinions, and (whether it is based on personal experience, research (both good and bad), or political ties) this opinion colors the perspective we use to view and interpret content. Hearing a physician advocate for the COVID-19 vaccine and increased quarantine might have someone agreeing or someone calling this doctor (or potentially all doctors) biased, wrong, or even agenda-pushing. Whether this physician is right or wrong, there are bound to be mixed opinions by patients on the subject. For those who agree, they are likely to keep gravitating toward this person’s page to learn more and more. On the other hand, for those who disagree, they may feel any physician they see will not honor their opinion or view since it goes against their “medical” recommendations.

This all boils down to a question of responsibility on both the patient and health professional sides. Do health professionals acting as health professionals on the internet have a degree of responsibility to be mindful of the effects their content has on the public and overall public trust? Is it the patient’s responsibility to consume content with caution and understanding? Should health professionals avoid giving advice or generalized ideas about things like vaccines to avoid ostracizing certain groups? These are both tricky questions, and I do not believe there are clear-cut answers to any of the questions listed above. Overall, personally, I feel that physicians and other health professionals do take on a degree of responsibility acting with that professional label online; however, I do not think it is fair to say they cannot give what they deem responsible advice (like getting vaccinated). Ultimately, it is not the doctor's responsibility to appease everyone and make everyone feel included. However, it is their responsibility to use their voices with caution to help increase the good that their field can do. Whether that means emphasizing patient autonomy and choice or talking transparently about issues faced on both sides, I think social media as a whole can have a positive impact in decreasing the barriers between health professionals and patients, allowing people within this setting to communicate as people who are willing to understand and listen to each other.

While this post is broader and not focused on women’s healthcare, I would like to briefly discuss the implications this has, particularly within women’s healthcare. Women’s healthcare, both in treatments and procedures, are especially known to be labeled as non-transparent. From the amount of pain some of these procedures involve to the way doctors and nurses aid the patient through this pain, there is ample room for fear. As both patients and physicians become more intertwined with the digital world, this information can become more accessible, and there is the potential for change on both the physician and patient side. Physicians may become more aware of how their words and actions affect their patients and change their approach as a result. Patients may learn what their physicians need them to communicate in order for the physicians to help them. Additionally, patients who have never experienced certain procedures or treatments can hopefully lower their anxiety through learning about the procedure itself, other patient experiences, and physician perspectives. (Some videos of procedures can honestly scare more than anything, but hopefully, those scary videos can help act as lessons on how to improve someone else’s experience through the sharing of stories in the comments and descriptions.) Increasing understanding on both sides has so much potential, especially within a system often characterized by fear and mistrust.

Sources:

• Not all of Us are Saints by David Hilfiker

• Image link