SCCM Resource Library-Media Versus Medicine: Disputing Social Media and Newsertainment

Video Transcription

Hello, my name is Stephanie Char-Shaffian. Today I'll be discussing media versus medicine disputing social media and news entertainment.  For the purposes of today's discussion, news entertainment refers to news or journalism that is more focused on entertainment than providing accurate information to the public.  First, I'll give a brief overview of the problem. I'll discuss risks and benefits of social media and entertainment news as it pertains to health care.  I'll discuss communication strategies to combat misinformation and briefly discuss potential next steps.  We work in a world where the standard for information is evidence based, peer reviewed, builds on existing evidence.  But because of the standard for publication and the peer review process, it's slow. It takes time to get disseminated and much more time to be adopted.  But we live in a world where the standard for information is fast, streamlined, entertaining, at our fingertips, delivered in exactly the way we want it, tailored to our existing interests and beliefs, accessible to all and can be created by anyone.  Social media has created an unparalleled capability to spread information and opinions, reach millions and exert influence.  Not only is there the capability to spread intentionally created misinformation with a particular agenda, but above that, even content that is not intentionally misleading can be inaccurate and potentially harmful.  But there can be both risks and benefits to utilizing social media as it relates to health care.  Potential benefits of social media include online support communities for our patients, professional networking and collaboration, harnessing the power of social media to combat misinformation.  It can be used to rapidly spread and implement public health measures to the general public. It has the potential to broadly raise awareness and funding for medical research or specific diseases.  In 2014, $115 million was raised from the Ice Bucket Challenge on Facebook for research into new treatment strategies for ALS, and there have been other such successes.  Social media can be used for rapid and easy dissemination of research. It can lead to easier recruitment of hard-to-reach populations for medical research, and data available on social media can be used for observational studies or for creation of prediction models.  But there can also be significant risks related to health information on social media and in the news. There is no peer review process. Any idea can spread, even if it is fabricated or not supported by the evidence, and this can mislead and misinform our patients.  It's difficult to tell what's factual and what's misleading, biased, or false. The vast majority of social media users don't have any scientific background and may be ill-equipped to judge the quality of evidence and sources, if there are any.  False stories spread much faster, farther, and broadly than true news stories, and these stories are difficult to refute. It's often difficult to find the source of the content, and therefore motivations behind creating the content.  Tailored content creates echo chambers that reinforce current opinions and feelings of being right. This can create a public health concern when false information regarding health is widely spread, and this can impact both healthcare utilization and medical noncompliance, and this can also lead to harmful self-diagnosis and treatment.  In response to the massive amount of misinformation circulating online regarding COVID-19, the World Health Organization declared an infodemic in addition to the global pandemic. The WHO defines an infodemic as too much information, including false or misleading information, in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines the public health response.  In response to this, they have developed a website with infodemic management information and guidelines, which are available to all online.  But how do we combat this misinformation when a patient makes statements in the course of our care that show us that they have been exposed to and believe this misinformation?  First and foremost, we can have a conversation and provide corrective information when confronted with health-related misinformation. So if we're going to take the time to step up and have these conversations, let's try to arm ourselves with the tools needed to have these discussions effectively.  It's not just about the words, but about semantics and pragmatics. What you say and how you say it has meaning, and that can be interpreted in different ways by our patients.  But the good news is this is a learned skill. There's a lot of literature on difficult conversations in the palliative care literature, and that, combined with the book Crucial Conversations, is where I pulled a lot of the following information.  So what is a crucial conversation? These are high stakes, involve opposing opinions, and evoke strong emotions. We have always had and will continue to have high stakes conversations with our patients and their families, and our communication skills can make all the difference.  First, of course, is preparation. That includes knowing the data on what we are discussing, the timing. Is it a quick question you can answer on rounds, or do you need to set a time to come back and get into a longer discussion?  The situation or location, again, depends on the conversation being had. Is this okay for the bedside or the hallway for a quick question, or should this be seated, private, and more focused for an in-depth or more personal discussion?  Who will be present? Is it just going to be you and the patient or their family member? Or is this a more in-depth talk involving the patient, multiple family members, bedside nurse, pharmacy, additional ancillary staff, etc.?  And part of the preparation involves knowing what messages our body language conveys.  Now onto the discussion. First, of course, is introductions. Clarifying the discussion at hand and establishing a mutual purpose. Determine understanding and gather necessary background information from the participants.  This may be an opportunity to dive deeper and get to know the person and their motives a bit more. This can help to establish rapport and gives an idea of what's important to them based on what they choose to share.  It's about creating a dialogue, which is an open discussion where ideas are shared by sharing your concerns, listening sincerely to the concerns of others, and building the relationship.  This requires both parties to be actively involved in the conversation. This can involve asking open-ended questions, encouraging others to share their facts and their stories, and making it safe for others to offer differing or opposing views.  This includes maintaining a mutual respect and compassion. Patients want to feel heard, supported, and respected, and this requires finding a nonjudgmental starting point.  This is about providing information, again, in a nonjudgmental manner. Don't overwhelm with details or data. Speak in layman's terms. Provide an initial overview, stopping to assess understanding, answer questions, and providing the next level of detail as needed.  And be honest when you do not know something. This doesn't lessen our information. It leaves room to come back with new information in the future. If we speak as if everything is already known and then things change, it can breed mistrust.  Allowing time for silence, which can allow patients the time to process the information or think of the next question. Listening with a goal of understanding our differing perspectives, and responding to emotions by acknowledging the emotion, legitimizing it, exploring what's underneath the emotion, using empathic curiosity, and empathizing with the patient.  This sounds pretty easy, right? But sometimes it can all feel very personal. We often feel triggered because of how personal it feels, and we villainize the other person. But if we do that, we can't maintain mutual respect, and that comes across in our conversation, leading to unproductive conversations.  In order to proceed with collaborative communication, conflict must be addressed and managed. One of the strategies for managing conflict involves moving difficult conversations from conflict to learning. We frequently assume we know the intention that motivated someone's actions based on the impact it had on us. This can lead to inaccurate assumptions and unproductive solutions to managing the conflict.  A more productive conversation when dealing with conflict should start with an attitude of curiosity and patience. This means shifting to a more curious approach, seeking to understand the other person's motivations.  We have to try to remember that just because we may be exhausted by the number of times we've had to deal with medical misinformation, this person we are speaking to is likely not trying to be misinformed or spread misinformation. They are likely trying to arm themselves with information about their care, but they likely don't know where or how to get accurate information.  And while I wish this wasn't a problem and I didn't have to deal with it, the root cause of the problem is likely not the person sitting in front of me.  So, we can help dispute misinformation in a few ways. First, by combating misinformation. We can correct misinformation on an individual basis when we encounter it face-to-face by having difficult conversations as we've been discussing.  We can also correct misinformation on social media and potentially reach our circle of friends and families or more. And this effort may be more effective in the future by using machine learning or artificial intelligence to identify misinformation online.  Secondly, by collaborating with journalists and news media. We know that journalists report on medical information. There are healthcare correspondents, contributors, and sources for news stations.  We can also consider not just writing our research for the scientific community, but also disseminating that research to the general public.  Many media outlets are looking for health-related studies because of great interest of the general public. They also want it to come from the expert who did the study.  And in the future, collaborative health journalism research may be beneficial in finding more successful ways to work with journalists to more effectively share information with the general public and change people's behaviors in a positive way.  While this was just a brief introduction to this topic, here are some resources for those interested. The first few bullets are resources for difficult conversations, followed by a few articles on communication.  The last two are the World Health Organization information regarding combating infodemics and the AFP Fact Check website. This is a digital verification service to combat misinformation and the leading global fact-checking organization available free online.  Here are my references. Thank you so much.

Video Summary

In this video, Stephanie Char-Shaffian discusses the impact of social media and news entertainment on healthcare. She highlights the risks and benefits of using social media for health information, including the potential for spreading misinformation and the ability to create support communities. She also addresses the challenges posed by the infodemic during the COVID-19 pandemic and provides strategies for combating misinformation, such as having open conversations and collaborating with journalists. Stephanie emphasizes the importance of effective communication skills in addressing misconceptions and promoting accurate information. She concludes by providing additional resources for further exploration of the topic.

Asset Subtitle

Professional Development and Education, Quality and Patient Safety, 2022

Asset Caption

The internet provides the public with information about many different topics, including the etiology of common symptoms and possible medical diagnoses. Often patients and families feel that they are knowledgeable about a disease or management based on internet searching and not on information that is grounded in medical science. As healthcare professionals, it is sometimes difficult to reason with family members who have been misled by information from nonscientific, non-peer-reviewed sources. We have an obligation to provide our patients with scientifically sound, critically reviewed information.

Meta Tag

Content Type Presentation

Knowledge Area Professional Development and Education

Knowledge Area Quality and Patient Safety

Knowledge Level Foundational

Knowledge Level Intermediate

Knowledge Level Advanced

Membership Level Select

Tag Patient and Family Support

Tag Evidence Based Medicine

Year 2022

Keywords

social media

news entertainment

healthcare

misinformation

support communities

	Society of Critical Care Medicine 500 Midway Drive Mount Prospect, IL 60056 USA Phone: +1 847 827-6888 Fax: +1 847 439-7226 Email: support@sccm.org	Contact Us About SCCM Newsroom Advertising & Sponsorship DONATE	MySCCM LearnICU Patients & Families Surviving Sepsis Campaign Critical Care Societies Collaborative	GET OUR NEWSLETTER
© Society of Critical Care Medicine. All rights reserved. \| Privacy Statement \| Terms & Conditions The Society of Critical Care Medicine, SCCM, and Critical Care Congress are registered trademarks of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.