During my daily perusal of all that is healthcare online (and that’s a lot to keep track of), I came across an interesting study that was pointed out by KevinMD.com. What it found wasn’t terribly surprising, but it was a great premise to test. The gist of the study was to figure out if your doctor gives a diagnosis using medical jargon,  is it interpreted as being more serious and less prevalent (i.e., more rare)? A few of the terms they looked at were “newly medicalized terms,” like erectile dysfunction versus impotence compared standard medical terminology like myocardial infarction versus heart attack. What the study found was that only the recently “medicalized terms” caused people to think they had something worse than what it actually was. For whatever reason, when using standard medical terminology (like myocardial infarction) people were not confused.

The study’s bottom line is summed up here: “A similar pattern was not seen in the established medical conditions, even when controlled for severity. This study demonstrates that the use of medical language in communication can induce bias in perception; a simple switch in terminology results in a disease being perceived as more serious, more likely to be a disease, and more likely to be a rare condition. These findings regarding the conceptualization of disease have implications for many areas, including medical communication with the public, advertising, and public policy.”

Okay, here’s my take. When doctors used the medical terminology patients actually understood what disease they had and how severe it was. Credit that to all the medical shows on TV I guess. On the other hand, when people were told they had one of these “new” conditions, things looked pretty grim in their eyes. Two of my favorites: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome becomes “Myalgic Encephalomyelitis” and Skin Tags (you know ‘em if you’ve got ‘em) becomes “Acrochrodon.”  Pretty sure no one wants to hear anything from their doctor that has “enceph-” in it. The rest:

For the record, I’m going to make no pronouncements against the pharma companies that likely created many of the “Recently Medicalized” disorders. Where the problem lies is instead how this information is communicated.  Even with these convoluted names, there’s no reason for anyone to go on thinking they have a much more serious condition than they actually do. It’s not a great way to go through life. This lines up conveniently with the recent Microsoft study on “Cyberchondria” where people self-diagnosed themselves with the worst possible diseases. So, the blame doesn’t rest entirely on the patients. Physicians need to improve their communication skills.

However, the reality of our medical system is that most physicians simply don’t have the opportunity to spend even 15 minutes with a patient talking about their disease. They are forced to hit the high points and do their best in the time they’ve got. From there, patients are on their own. But does it need to be this way? Glad you asked. The answer is “no.”

Consider how digital technologies might help here. Instead of just a few confusing minutes with the patient, the physician comes into the exam room with a customized pamphlet that his nurse just printed for him. On the pamphlet is a customized URL that links to a page designed entirely for this specific patient. Not this type of patient, not this disease. This exact patient. With the powerful content management systems (CMS) available today, this doesn’t have to be an amazing feat. Instead, the nurse answers a handful of questions, selects appropriate content and hits “print.” At the same time, a customized page is created online for the patient to review later.

Simple. No one walks away thinking they’ve got something worse than they do or confused about what to do next, they’ve got a customized answer just for them. If you’re going to provide information for patients on a website, you’ve got to include some simple segmentation that ensures that people only see information relevant to their condition. Consider an advanced lung cancer patient who arrives at your site to find some “background” information on lung cancer including risk factors, prevalence, and how to prevent it. Do you think they care about this? Probably not at this point. How does seeing this information on your site make them feel about your brand? At the same time, a stage 1 lunch cancer patient doesn’t need to see that there’s a 2% 5-year survival rate for lung cancer. That’s for advanced, but is often quoted as THE number. Instead, ensure they see the early stage number, which is far more positive (50%).

With all the content available out there, why not make it more accessible and more relevant to each patient? If we’re talking about customized medicine lead by genetic testing and specialized drug combinations, why can’t we simply have customized websites? Seems like a lot simpler start.

Possibly related posts (auto-generated):

1. Using Digital to Address the Needs of Caregivers
2. Pharma Can Use Email Marketing to Improve…Everything
3. One More Reason Pharma Needs Product Reviews