Health 2.0 Europe began, for me, in February, when I started thinking about some of the topics that the Patients and Online Communities panel would discuss. My post, “Privacy can kill, openness can heal,” kicked off a discussion about health data rights, the role of health professionals, security/confidentiality/privacy, patient-driven research, and why relatively few patients have joined formal patient communities while naturally-occurring communities on Twitter/MySpace/Facebook have blossomed.

The feast of ideas continued as I talked with Indu Subaiya, the moderator, and Gilles Frydman, Jamie Heywood, and Alexander Schachinger, three of my six co-panelists. I did as much research as I could on the other three panelists, but was a bit hampered by my inability to read German or Italian! I needn’t have worried — their presentations were fantastic (and in beautiful English).

I decided to use my opening remarks to dispel a couple of myths (the internet does not replace doctors, for example) and to hopefully spark a conversation (even if it was only in the audience members’ heads) about how it is time for Health 2.0 to evolve. Why?

Because nobody in that room needed to hear about the basics of patient networks.

Instead, it is time to talk about the power of health conversations informed by data, the self-experimentation that people engage in using information often found online, the impact of real-world experience on drug safety, and of course, participatory medicine.

Here’s what I said:

For those of you who don’t know me, I work for the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, which studies the social impact of the internet. The best way to explain it is to say I am an internet geologist.  I measure patterns in the internet landscape. Here’s a very important distinction:  A geologist does not judge the rocks. She studies them. I don’t say one technology is better than the other. I don’t say one outcome is better than the other. I provide data to help you make those judgments.

All of my reports and data sets are available for free on the Pew Internet Project’s website and you can argue (or agree) with me about our findings on Twitter or on e-patients.net.

Today I’m going to give you just a few data points to think about as we discuss patient networks and participation in health care.

Pew Internet surveys show that about 8 in 10 American adults have access to the internet, but access varies according to someone’s age, education, income level, and health status.

Only about two-thirds of people living with chronic conditions go online, including people living with diabetes, heart conditions, high blood pressure, lung conditions, or cancer.

E-patients are listening to each other, consulting hospital reviews and doctor reviews, and posting which treatments work for them. Internet users living with chronic disease are more likely than others to look online for information about prescription or over the counter drugs – about half do so.

However, the internet does not replace doctors, nurses, and other health professionals.  93% of people living with chronic disease turn to a health professional for medical advice. The internet is a supplement. The internet is changing people’s relationship to information, which affects their relationship with health professionals, but we need to move past this notion that doctors should fear the internet’s influence any more than we need to fear the telephone.  This is evolution.

Part of the evolution is recognizing that patients and the people who love them are not just your target audience, but your colleagues. They are a resource for innovation and knowledge.

Instead of marketing to your audience, ask them to participate. Our data shows they are ready.

I think Health 2.0 is at a critical moment in its evolution.  Ask yourself how you are evolving. Are you adapting to the shift to mobile? Are you adapting to the rise of participatory medicine?  What is your goal and which technologies, policies, and practices best fit that goal?  As we crawl out of the primordial soup of the first decade of Health 2.0, think about whether you want to be a creature that walks on land, flies in the air, or swims in the sea.

I would argue that we have two archetypes on stage:  ACOR is a community of cancer patients who communicate via email: in text, in narrative.  PatientsLikeMe is a community of people with life-changing diagnoses who also communicate in text, in forums, but also share and compare data.  Cancer may lend itself better to the ACOR approach, whereas ALS may lend itself better to the PatientsLikeMe approach. Both are founded on a principle of openness. But before we go farther, let’s make sure we  are aware that by choosing narrative, by choosing data, by choosing open sharing or by choosing closed systems, we are evolving in certain directions.

Pew Internet data shows that the deck is stacked against people living with chronic disease.  They are likely to be older, less educated, living in lower-income households. But if they can get online, they have a trump card, a secret weapon: each other.  If they can get access to the internet, they adapt to the opportunity.  Chronic disease actually makes it more likely that someone will participate in the online conversation, to consume user-generated content, to seek and share peer advice. If they can adapt, why can’t you?

—

What followed was, in my opinion, a stellar discussion and series of presentations (and you know I’m honest about failed panels). I can’t wait for the video to be posted (as long as they leave off any frighteningly close shots of my face – yikes those cameramen liked the zoom) but in the meantime the feast continues:

On Twitter:

Archive of Health 2.0 Europe tweets (PDF)

Follow related conversations: #health2eu #hcsm #hcsmeu #WhyPM

On blogs:

Matthew Holt: Health 2.0 Europe–My Take (tying lots of threads together)

Denise Silber: Health 2.0 Europe (quite a few posts)

David Doherty: Health 2.0 Europe Review (unvarnished, even stinging, so his praise is especially appreciated)

Colleen Young: Health 2.0: Why SharingStrength will be in Paris this spring (wins my award for Most Valuable Tweeter and she seemed to soak up more knowledge than anyone else I met at the event)

Please join me at the table. What’s next for patient networks? What are you building today that is different from what was available 5 or 10 years ago?  What should be preserved as we go forward?

The Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Project and Internet Project just released an in-depth look at internet penetration across racial and ethnic categories in the U.S.: Latinos Online, 2006-2008

From 2006 to 2008, internet use among Latino adults rose by 10 percentage points, from 54% to 64%.  In comparison, the rates for whites rose four percentage points, and the rates for blacks rose only two percentage points during that time period.  Though Latinos continue to lag behind whites, the gap in internet use has shrunk considerably.

Most of the growth is coming from foreign-born Latinos and those living in lower-income households. Native-born and higher-income Latinos, like non-Hispanic whites, may have already reached internet saturation in 2006.

Another group that has not moved the needle since 2006: people living with chronic conditions.

My next report will focus on internet use among adults living with chronic diseases (with a special focus on diabetes, heart conditions, lung conditions, high blood pressure, and/or cancer).  The last time I took a look at this group was in 2007, when we asked a broader question to define e-patients living with a disability or chronic disease. No matter which way we slice the population, though, I can tell you that internet access is still low among people challenged by health problems. Not much has changed in two years.

The good news, however, is that once online, people living with chronic conditions get right in there — communicating with friends and family via email, looking online for health information, and upgrading to broadband at home.

So: if you believe that participatory medicine starts with participation by the patient, pay attention to internet access numbers (especially broadband and wireless figures). Participation matters, but without access, it’s a moot point.