Extremely helpful! Thank you. Both the research and your description of your enlightening conversation about Information distortion are going to be important tools for us.
Social media fills the vacuum of quality, actionable information on women’s health - the vacuum created by a confluence of factors, most especially providers with barely any time to spend counseling patients and a lack of patient-centered research.
I’m not so sanguine on the rigor, replicability, or quality of women’s health literature. Compounding this is the problem of clinicians being several years behind or simply unaware of recent literature and explicitly misinforming their patients. A great example of this, not in women’s health, is pediatrics counseling parents to avoid peanut exposure.
You seem to have great, unfounded faith in “the facts” as if human subjects research were actually capable of establishing them. My own field is autism research. Precious few facts to be found there, unfortunately - and not for lack of trying; it’s highly complex.
All in all, it’s not simple. Patients want to do what works. If clinicians cannot or will not support them in achieving desired outcomes, but social media influencers can, they will flock to the influencers. If clinicians cannot treat them humanely during a delicate, emotionally challenging time of their life, they will go to the people who will treat them humanely: naturopaths and so on. This is true for autism. This is true for women’s health.
Currently working with a team to combat the use of health care professionals as social media influencers to sell infant formula.
hope this article was helpful to your work Christine and looking forward to learning more about your approach
Extremely helpful! Thank you. Both the research and your description of your enlightening conversation about Information distortion are going to be important tools for us.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Social media fills the vacuum of quality, actionable information on women’s health - the vacuum created by a confluence of factors, most especially providers with barely any time to spend counseling patients and a lack of patient-centered research.
I’m not so sanguine on the rigor, replicability, or quality of women’s health literature. Compounding this is the problem of clinicians being several years behind or simply unaware of recent literature and explicitly misinforming their patients. A great example of this, not in women’s health, is pediatrics counseling parents to avoid peanut exposure.
You seem to have great, unfounded faith in “the facts” as if human subjects research were actually capable of establishing them. My own field is autism research. Precious few facts to be found there, unfortunately - and not for lack of trying; it’s highly complex.
All in all, it’s not simple. Patients want to do what works. If clinicians cannot or will not support them in achieving desired outcomes, but social media influencers can, they will flock to the influencers. If clinicians cannot treat them humanely during a delicate, emotionally challenging time of their life, they will go to the people who will treat them humanely: naturopaths and so on. This is true for autism. This is true for women’s health.
these are great points and well said Liz!