Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Diagnosis

Official Journal of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM)

Editor-in-Chief: Graber, Mark L. / Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Argy, Nicolas / Epner, Paul L. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Singhal, Geeta / McDonald, Kathryn / Singh, Hardeep / Newman-Toker, David

Editorial Board: Basso , Daniela / Crock, Carmel / Croskerry, Pat / Dhaliwal, Gurpreet / Ely, John / Giannitsis, Evangelos / Katus, Hugo A. / Laposata, Michael / Lyratzopoulos, Yoryos / Maude, Jason / Sittig, Dean F. / Sonntag, Oswald / Zwaan, Laura

Online
ISSN
2194-802X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

“Dr. Google” and his predecessors

Annemarie Jutel
  • Corresponding author
  • Victoria University of Wellington – Graduate School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, PO Box 7625, Wellington 6242, New Zealand
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-04-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2016-0045

Abstract

Background:

Contemporary medicine has expressed concern about lay incursions into the diagnostic process buttressed by commonly available medical information on line. Even while the world wide web is a new structure, there is a long historical precedent for this concern. With the emergence of scientific medicine in the late 19th century came a strong belief in the role of diagnosis, not only to explain disease symptoms but also to differentiate the physician from a range of other unreliable practitioners. Along with this focus on diagnosis came also a concern expressed by doctors about patients’ inclination to self-diagnose, or to propose candidate diagnoses for the problems that ailed them.

Methods:

This paper uses Zerubavel’s social patterning method. Using material written by doctors from the late 19th until the mid-20th century, I explore comments about, and attitudes towards, self-diagnosis.

Results:

Three areas of concern about self-diagnosis are expressed by doctors. First, self-diagnosis produces anxiety in the patient. Second, it interferes with doctor-patient relationship. Finally self-diagnosis is commonly linked to commercial interests.

Conclusions:

Contemporary concerns about self-diagnosis are part of an ongoing social pattern, which simultaneously promotes diagnosis as means for explaining disease but also protests when the diagnostic explanations originate with the patient.

Keywords: cyberchondria; Google; history of medicine; self-diagnosis; sociology of diagnosis

References

  • 1.

    Crenner C. Private practice in the early twentieth-century medical office of Dr. Richard Cabot. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005:303.Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Hadra BE. The public and the doctor. By a regular physician. Dallas, Texas: J.M. Colville, The Franklin Press, 1902.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Zerubavel E. Generally speaking: the logic and mechanics of social pattern analysis. Sociol Forum 2007;22:131–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Avery N, Ghandi J, Keating J. The ‘Dr Google’ phenomenon – missed appendicitis. N Z Med J 2012;125:135–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Feke T. Dr. Google should be sued for malpractice. Here’s why KevinMd.com2015 [cited 2016 20 Oct]. Available from: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/08/dr-google-should-be-sued-for-malpractice-heres-why.html.

  • 6.

    Hesse BW. The patient, the physician, and Dr. Google. Virtual Mentor 2012;14:398–402.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Limb M. Technology must not replace human contact in drive for self care, conference hears. Br Med J 2014;348:g4278.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Tyrer P, Eilenberg T, Fink P, Hedman E, Tyrer H. Health anxiety: the silent, disabling epidemic. Br Med J 2016;353: i2250.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Doherty-Torstrick ER, Walton KE, Fallon BA. Cyberchondria: parsing health anxiety from online behavior. Psychosomatics 2016;57:390–400.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Fergus TA, Dolan SL. Problematic internet use and internet searches for medical information: the role of health anxiety. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2014;17:761–5.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Kim H. Trouble spots in online direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion: a content analysis of FDA warning letters. Int J Health Policy Manag 2015;4:813–21.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Lupton D, Jutel A. ‘It’s like having a physician in your pocket!’ A critical analysis of self-diagnosis smartphone apps. Soc Sci Med 2015;133:128–35.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Krecke A. The doctor and his patients. Lange F, editor. London: Kogan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1934.Google Scholar

  • 14.

    Anonymous. Commerce without conscience. Br Med J 1937;24:178–9.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Gersuny R. Doctor and patient: hints to both. Bristol, UK: John Wright & Co, 1889.Google Scholar

  • 16.

    Keith RD. Clinical case-taking. London: H.K. Lewis & Co. Ltd., 1918.Google Scholar

  • 17.

    Lapham RF. Disease and the man. New York: Oxford University Press, 1937.Google Scholar

  • 18.

    Styrap J. A code of medical ethics: with remarks on the duties of the practitioners to their patients, and the obligation of patients to their medical advisers. London: J & A Churchill, 1878.Google Scholar

  • 19.

    Bainbridge WS. The Cancer Campaign Quarternary: the problem; the public; the patient; the physician. Am J Surg 1917;31:162–7.Google Scholar

  • 20.

    Little EG. Doctors and the public: an address delivered at the opening of the medical session at St. George’s medical school on October 1st, 1926. Foxton: Burlington Press, 1926.Google Scholar

  • 21.

    Brackenbury HB. Patient and doctor. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935.Google Scholar

  • 22.

    Rector FL. Seven steps to the undertaker. Bull Am Soc Control Cancer 1936;18:1–5.Google Scholar

  • 23.

    Kreimer S. Dealing with Dr. Google: why communication is key ModernMedicine Network 2015 [cited 2016 20 Oct]. Available from: http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/dealing-dr-google-why-communication-key?page=full.

  • 24.

    Goyder C, McPherson A, Glasziou P. Self diagnosis. Br Med J 2009;339(nov11_1):b4418.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-12-05

Accepted: 2017-03-01

Published Online: 2017-04-13

Published in Print: 2017-06-27


Author contributions: The author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Diagnosis, Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 87–91, ISSN (Online) 2194-802X, ISSN (Print) 2194-8011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2016-0045.

Export Citation

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Xiaojuan Ma, Xinning Gui, Jiayue Fan, Mingqian Zhao, Yunan Chen, and Kai Zheng
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2018, Volume 2, Number CSCW, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in