Dr. Google in patient-physician interactions: Pros and Cons

Abstract

Dr. Google has evolved with time from being a medical infopedia to an artificial intelligence (AI) powered provider capable of interacting with patients in real time and this happened due to the involvement of social media and AI chatbots. Dr Google is not only consulted as a pre-visiting health information searching tool but it also provides health monitoring and treatment plans. Through the help of social media, people can connect and share medical information in the form of health forums and Youtube videos and seek help. However, it can create new challenges for the medical providers in the form of rapport building, challenging preconceived notions, and managing unnecessary demands from patients. The involvement of Google can have both advantages and disadvantages from patients’ and doctors’ viewpoints and can affect physician scoring system and insurance reimbursement. Hence, it is critical to review the pros and cons of Google’s involvement in medicine and understand the possible future implications.

Keywords

• Dr. Google
• Internet
• Patient
• Physician

References

1. Gualtieri LN. 2009. The doctor as the second opinion and the internet as the first. In CHI ‘09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ‘09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2489-98. doi: 10.1145/1520340.1520352.
2. Househ M, Borycki E, Kushniruk A. Empowering patients through social media: The benefits and challenges. Health Informatics J. 2014 Mar;20(1):50-8. doi: 10.1177/1460458213476969.
3. Van Riel N, Auwerx K, Debbaut P, Van Hees S, Schoenmakers B. The effect of Dr Google on doctor-patient encounters in primary care: a quantitative, observational, cross-sectional study. BJGP Open. 2017 May 17;1(2):bjgpopen17X100833. doi: 10.3399/bjgpopen17X100833.
4. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001 May;285(20):2612-21. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.20.2612.
5. Johnson D, Goodman R, Patrinely J, Stone C, Zimmerman E, Donald R, Chang S, Berkowitz S, Finn A, Jahangir E, Scoville E, Reese T, Friedman D, Bastarache J, van der Heijden Y, Wright J, Carter N, Alexander M, Choe J, Chastain C, Zic J, Horst S, Turker I, Agarwal R, Osmundson E, Idrees K, Kieman C, Padmanabhan C, Bailey C, Schlegel C, Chambless L, Gibson M, Osterman T, Wheless L. Assessing the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated medical responses: An evaluation of the chat-GPT model. Res Sq [Preprint]. 2023 Feb 28:rs.3.rs-2566942. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2566942/v1.
6. Tan SS, Goonawardene N. Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 19;19(1):e9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5729.
7. Van Riel N, Auwerx K, Debbaut P, Van Hees S, Schoenmakers B. The effect of Dr Google on doctor-patient encounters in primary care: a quantitative, observational, cross-sectional study. BJGP Open. 2017 May 17;1(2):bjgpopen17X100833. doi: 10.3399/bjgpopen17X100833.
8. Dilliway G, Maudsley G. Patients bringing information to primary care consultations: a cross-sectional (questionnaire) study of doctors’ and nurses’ views of its impact. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Aug;14(4):545-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00911.x.

9. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Catania J, White M, Zapert K, Turner R. The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: patient perceptions. Arch Intern Med. 2003 Jul 28;163(14):1727-34. doi: 10.1001/archinte.163.14.1727.
10. Mehta SJ. Patient satisfaction reporting and its implications for patient care. AMA J Ethics. 2015 Jul 1;17(7):616-21. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.7.ecas3-1507.
11. Stevenson FA, Kerr C, Murray E, Nazareth I. Information from the Internet and the doctor-patient relationship: the patient perspective--a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2007 Aug 16:8:47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-8-47.
12. AlGhamdi KM, Moussa NA. Internet use by the public to search for health-related information. Int J Med Inform. 2012 Jun;81(6):363-73. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.12.004.
13. Tan SS, Goonawardene N. Internet Health Information Seeking and the Patient-Physician Relationship: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 19;19(1):e9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5729.
14. Sommerhalder K, Abraham A, Zufferey MC, Barth J, Abel T. Internet information and medical consultations: experiences from patients’ and physicians’ perspectives. Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Nov;77(2):266-71. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.028.
15. Weaver JB 3rd, Mays D, Lindner G, Eroglu D, Fridinger F, Bernhardt JM. Profiling characteristics of internet medical information users. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Sep-Oct;16(5):714-22. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M3150.
16. Starcevic V, Berle D, Arnáez S. Recent insights into cyberchondria. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020 Aug 27;22(11):56. doi: 10.1007/s11920-020-01179-8.
17. Starcevic V, Berle D. Cyberchondria: towards a better understanding of excessive health-related Internet use. Expert Rev Neurother. 2013 Feb;13(2):205-13. doi: 10.1586/ern.12.162.
18. Bianco A, Zucco R, Nobile CG, Pileggi C, Pavia M. Parents seeking health-related information on the Internet: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Sep 18;15(9):e204. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2752.
19. McTigue KM, Conroy MB, Hess R, Bryce CL, Fiorillo AB, Fischer GS, Milas NC, Simkin-Silverman LR. Using the internet to translate an evidence-based lifestyle intervention into practice. Telemed J E Health. 2009 Nov;15(9):851-8. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0036.
20. West HJ, Camidge DR. Have mutation, will travel: utilizing online patient communities and new trial strategies to optimize clinical research in the era of molecularly diverse oncology. J Thorac Oncol. 2012 Mar;7(3):482-4. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182432646.
21. West HJ. Practicing in partnership with Dr. Google: the growing effect of social media in oncology practice and research. Oncologist. 2013;18(7):780-2. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0453.
22. Newnham GM, Burns WI, Snyder RD, Dowling AJ, Ranieri NF, Gray EL, McLachlan SA. Information from the Internet: attitudes of Australian oncology patients.Intern Med J. 2006 Nov;36(11):718-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01212.x.
23. Sommerhalder K, Abraham A, Zufferey MC, Barth J, Abel T. Internet information and medical consultations: experiences from patients’ and physicians’ perspectives. Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Nov;77(2):266-71. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.028.24.
24. Advancing Medical Professionalism to Improve Health Care Foundation. Choosing Wisely. Available at: http://www.choosingwisely.org. Accessed July 4, 2023.
25. Fenton JJ, Jerant AF, Bertakis KD, Franks P. The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Mar 12;172(5):405-11. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1662.
26. Krist AH, Tong ST, Aycock RA, Longo DR. Engaging patients in decision-making and behavior change to promote prevention. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;240:284-302.
27. Laurance J, Henderson S, Howitt PJ, Matar M, Al Kuwari H, Edgman-Levitan S, Darzi A. Patient engagement: four case studies that highlight the potential for improved health outcomes and reduced costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Sep;33(9):1627-34. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0375.
28. Bohr A, Memarzadeh K. The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare. 2020 June 26;25-60. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818438-7.00002-2.
29. Haleem A, Javaid M, Singh RP, Suman R. Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications. Sens Int. 2021:2:100117. doi: 10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100117.
30. Google AI: Predicting Heart Disease in the Blink of an Eye - Technology and Operations Management. Modified Nov 12, 2018. Available at: https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-rctom/submission/google-ai-predicting-heart-disease-in-the-blink-of-an-eye/.
31. Johnson KB, Wei WQ, Weeraratne D, Frisse ME, Misulis K, Rhee K, Zhao J, Snowdon JL. Precision medicine, AI, and the future of personalized health care. Clin Transl Sci. 2021 Jan;14(1):86-93. doi: 10.1111/cts.12884.
32. Abul-Husn NS, Kenny EE. Personalized medicine and the power of electronic health records. Cell. 2019 Mar 21;177(1):58-69. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.039.
33. Appel G, Neelbauer J, Schweidel DA. Generative AI has an intellectual property problem. Harvard Business Review. April 7, 2023. Available at: https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem.