Week #6 Readings
Boulos and Wheeler’s paper was about the ways Web 2.0 software can be applied to the health field. The authors suggested that the softwares’ abilities to make connections, to facilitate collaborations, to afford flexibility, to increase interactivity, and to create an architecture of participation could enhance the way patients and professionals interact. All these connecting technologies lead to something known as “collective knowledge.” Despite the potential for erroneous information from nonprofessionals, collective knowledge will sometimes result in answers better than those given by professionals.
Boulos and Wheeler said that another effect of creating collective knowledge from Web 2.0 is that knowledge and information are less easily owned and controlled. The authors referenced Boyd’s theory that “technology is not enough.” They suggest that this will makes political problems “as technological and cultural desire clash with legislation and political support of traditional information organizations.” Those who have created certain information enjoy the benefits of patents and copyrights. However these government-granted titles are increasingly hard to enforce, because of Web 2.0 software. An area where patents affect the medical field have to do with pharmaceuticals. Knowing the amount of money that’s to be had in the pharmaceutical industry, you can easily see why this will create political pressure by the pharm-companies.
Another way social software can affect the medical field cited was by connecting rural clinicians to virtual professional communities that can increase their expertise. There is an example of such a facility in Franklin, WV. The Pendleton County Care/North Fork clinics provide health care to the very rural areas of Pendleton County. Not only are the clinicians able to better care for their patients because of Web 2.0, but they use video-conferencing technology to connect rural patients to specialists not available in the area.
Both this paper and the article by Michelle Late suggested that another way to utilize Web 2.0 technologies by encouraging people to see doctors. This is an especially interesting when it comes to encouraging children to see the doctor. Late said, “…20,000 kids volunteered for [flu] vaccinations” on the online child site Whyville’s educational game “WhyFlu“. How many parents would love for their kids to be a little less hesitant about getting shots?
Overall, I think that these technologies will make the health field better by increasing the field’s knowledge base.
-Mary
It is interesting that whenever the majority of people use Web 2.0 to diagnose themselves, they usually end up with a worse diagnosis than is the reality of the situation. Are we searching for problems with ourselves to fill some sort of void? What exactly to we want Web 2.0 to tell us?
Hi Nick, I don’t see the video-conferencing option on their website. in any case, is there sufficient broadband subscribers in the rural areas to support this technology?
They do not have the video-conferencing option on their website. They have the hardware/software and what could be a broadband connection to support the video-conferencing in their clinic. it’s mostly for out-of-the-area specialist consulting, because many of the clinic’s patients do not have the means necessary to travel. I’m pretty certain that most of the area is not wired for broadband, and wouldn’t be able to use video-conferencing on the web anyway.
sorry Mary. i thought it was nick who posted this.