Health information: a case of saturation or 57 channels and nothing on?

Sandy Whitelaw
{"title":"Health information: a case of saturation or 57 channels and nothing on?","authors":"Sandy Whitelaw","doi":"10.1177/1466424008092233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The claim is made by many that we have reached a point where we are exposed to too much information. This potential phenomenon is particularly prominent in the health field where there is a suggestion that the volume of available information has increased significantly and more importantly that such volume has had detrimental effects on both the overall quality of such information and the ability of people to process and use it. This paper explores the nature and validity of these claims. Within the context of the notion of an 'information society', it outlines a range of concerns that have been expressed in relation to this increase, including the simple problem of overload, the potential for less robust information to enter the system and thus the overall quality of available information to decline. This excess of information is seen to act against the benefits that are sought--information can be invalid and people may not have time to reflect and act on excessive information loads. This can result in irrationality or disinformation. The suggestion is made, however, that these concerns are largely unsupported by empirical evidence and are potentially the basis of a panic over the entry of alternative perspectives on health. The pessimistic perspectives are thus balanced by more constructive and optimistic views on this growth and opening up of information production and potential consumption. Seeing information creation as organic and pluralistic, it is suggested that increased information volume can actually be a constructive phenomenon. The paper concludes with the contention that it is unrealistic to expect a return to former circumstances of controlled and limited information flows. Rather, a series of more pragmatic suggestions is offered within existing circumstances, including differentiating between information rich and poor health areas, addressing structural issues like information access and health literacy, and working towards organizing health information so that it is of a high quality, is physically accessible, relevant to the needs and literacy of groups, and in a usable form.</p>","PeriodicalId":22790,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health","volume":"128 4","pages":"175-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1466424008092233","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1466424008092233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The claim is made by many that we have reached a point where we are exposed to too much information. This potential phenomenon is particularly prominent in the health field where there is a suggestion that the volume of available information has increased significantly and more importantly that such volume has had detrimental effects on both the overall quality of such information and the ability of people to process and use it. This paper explores the nature and validity of these claims. Within the context of the notion of an 'information society', it outlines a range of concerns that have been expressed in relation to this increase, including the simple problem of overload, the potential for less robust information to enter the system and thus the overall quality of available information to decline. This excess of information is seen to act against the benefits that are sought--information can be invalid and people may not have time to reflect and act on excessive information loads. This can result in irrationality or disinformation. The suggestion is made, however, that these concerns are largely unsupported by empirical evidence and are potentially the basis of a panic over the entry of alternative perspectives on health. The pessimistic perspectives are thus balanced by more constructive and optimistic views on this growth and opening up of information production and potential consumption. Seeing information creation as organic and pluralistic, it is suggested that increased information volume can actually be a constructive phenomenon. The paper concludes with the contention that it is unrealistic to expect a return to former circumstances of controlled and limited information flows. Rather, a series of more pragmatic suggestions is offered within existing circumstances, including differentiating between information rich and poor health areas, addressing structural issues like information access and health literacy, and working towards organizing health information so that it is of a high quality, is physically accessible, relevant to the needs and literacy of groups, and in a usable form.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健康信息:是饱和还是57个频道都没有?
许多人声称,我们已经达到了暴露于过多信息的程度。这一潜在现象在卫生领域尤为突出,有人认为,现有资料的数量已大大增加,更重要的是,这种数量对资料的总体质量和人们处理和使用资料的能力都产生了不利影响。本文探讨了这些主张的性质和有效性。在“信息社会”概念的背景下,它概述了与这种增长有关的一系列问题,包括简单的过载问题,不那么可靠的信息进入系统的可能性,从而导致可用信息的整体质量下降。这种过剩的信息被视为与所寻求的利益背道而驰——信息可能是无效的,人们可能没有时间对过多的信息负荷进行反思和采取行动。这可能导致不理性或虚假信息。然而,有人提出,这些担忧在很大程度上没有得到经验证据的支持,并且可能是对其他健康观点进入的恐慌的基础。因此,对这种增长和信息生产和潜在消费的开放持更为建设性和乐观的看法,平衡了悲观的观点。鉴于信息创造是有机的和多元化的,我们认为信息量的增加实际上是一种建设性的现象。本文的结论是,期望回到以前信息流动受到控制和限制的情况是不现实的。相反,在现有情况下提出了一系列更务实的建议,包括区分信息丰富和信息贫乏的卫生领域,解决信息获取和卫生知识普及等结构性问题,并努力组织卫生信息,使其具有高质量、可实际获取、与群体的需求和扫盲相关,并以可用的形式提供。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Trust me I'm a doctor (or an art therapist or a biomedical scientist or a chiropodist .....). Policy and politics. Will new regulations reverse the 'drop' in homeopathy? The number of people buying medicine online. Regulating the health and social care sector--are we getting there?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1