Buyer beware: health choices information broadcast to the public

Abstract

Purpose – This paper is based on the author’s 2015 Northwest Patient Safety Conference presentation, consistent with a conference theme of improving doctor-patient communication. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Ongoing systematic accumulation and critical review of research literature regarding design of effective public information websites, conducted from 2008-2015 while the author was supervising the prototyping, refinement and evaluation of healthcare-associated infections public information websites. Findings – In 2005, the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched its Hospital Compare website, announced as an enormous step forward by providing objective information to inform consumer choices. Subsequently, many other websites and programs emerged to report quality-of-care ratings of hospitals and doctors, and provide other advice intended to help the public inform their choices. When objectively evaluated to a scientific publication-level standard, websites like Hospital Compare show relatively low usage and disappointing impact; individual providers rank so differently across ratings websites that it is difficult to see how trustworthy conclusions could be drawn; and much of the advice offered through popular media is not supported by believable evidence. Further, research shows healthcare professionals and members of the lay public view concepts of evidence and evidence-based decisions quite differently. Badly informed misguided decisions can have negative consequences for providers, patients and public trust. Originality/value – Populism and celebrity seem to have trumped science during recent growth of public information resources for health choices. This paper summarizes serious flaws underlying resulting information products, indicating necessary changes to better serve a legitimate need.