Over the past few days, I’ve been having a number of conversations about social
media communications strategy with various executives within the healthcare industry. One of the points I’ve been making is that when we think about communicating with patients online it should be about content first, technology second. We know from a study that came out of the United Kingdom that people searching for health information via the Internet ignore Websites produced by government agencies, pharmaceutical companies and other established interests. Why? Well, they are looking for information from “people like them” who have real stories about their experiences. In other words, want straight talk, not corporate speak.
This point was pounded home to me earlier this week when I read a harrowing story about a pro-choice woman who took the abortion combo Mifeprex (mifepristone)/Cytotec (Misoprostol) published in the July 2007 edition of Marie Claire. (Please note: While this focuses on abortion – a highly contentious subject – I am not making any political statements about its pros and cons.) Here’s what she (Norine Dworkin-McDaniel) had to say about her experience:
“The Mifeprex literature described some cramping and bleeding ‘similar or greater than a normal, heavy period.’ This sounded far more appealing than surgical abortion. A few pills, a couple of cramps, and it would be all over. . . . But as it turned out, things weren’t quite that simple. . . . Nothing – not the drug literature, not the clinic doctor, not even my own gyno—had prepared me for the [pain I experienced after taking the product.] . . . What blindsided me, apart from being battered by the misoprostol, were the huge cystic boils that soon covered my neck, shoulders and back. I was also overcome by fatigue . . .
Dworkin-McDaniel is not suggesting that the “abortion pill be banned,” but she felt the need to share her story to inform other women looking for a non-surgical abortion about its possible side effects.
Granted, the manufacturer of Mifeprex has posted a very easy to read medication guide on its Website about the product. However, many women, desperate to find more information, seek help from their peers. One bulletin board post on Medhelp.org featured a question from a woman who was “worried sick” that the pill did not work. One person using the site said that she was surprised about “how little unbiased information is out there” about the pill. Given this example, is it any wonder that people don’t trust official sources for medical content?
As pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, managed care organizations, government and others look for ways to participate in the online dialogue, they have to ask themselves if they are willing and able to provide information that people are REALLY seeking. Can they answer questions clearly and concisely? Are they willing to promote free-ranging conversations on a range of issues? Can they creatively and imaginatively get past the regulatory issues?
Right now, it remains to be seen whether the industry will be successful. But those engaged in helping organizations and corporations “get” social media should remember this: it’s about content first, technology second.
Image Credit: Jay Long, 2007
Comment Preview