Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus & ISI's SCI  
Users online: 4188  
Home | Subscribe | Feedback | Login 
About Latest Articles Back-Issues Articlesmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Etcetera Contact
 :: Next article
 :: Previous article 
 :: Table of Contents
 ::  Similar in PUBMED
 ::  Search Pubmed for
 ::  Search in Google Scholar for
 ::  Article in PDF (110 KB)
 ::  Citation Manager
 ::  Access Statistics
 ::  Reader Comments
 ::  Email Alert *
 ::  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free) 

  IN THIS Article
 ::  The e-patient re...
 ::  Changing dynamic...
 ::  Evidence based m...
 ::  References

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded456    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 13    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2004  |  Volume : 50  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 120-122

Doctor patient relationship: Changing dynamics in the information age

Department of Medicine, Seth G. S. Medical College and K. E. M. Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400012, India

Date of Submission20-Apr-04
Date of Decision27-May-04
Date of Acceptance16-Jun-06
Date of Web Publication06-Jul-04

Correspondence Address:
Shashank M Akerkar
Department of Medicine, Seth G. S. Medical College and K. E. M. Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400012
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 15235209

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Akerkar SM, Bichile L S. Doctor patient relationship: Changing dynamics in the information age. J Postgrad Med 2004;50:120-2

How to cite this URL:
Akerkar SM, Bichile L S. Doctor patient relationship: Changing dynamics in the information age. J Postgrad Med [serial online] 2004 [cited 2023 Jun 10];50:120-2. Available from:

They are arriving to your clinic armed with information they have found on the web, with a preconceived idea about their diagnosis and treatment options, more demanding regarding convenience and ease of access. They want to actively participate in therapeutic decisions and want all the decisions to be informed and intelligent. Meet the new empowered patient!; empowered by the information technology and its benefits.

 :: The e-patient revolution Top

Health information seekers on net have exponentially increased from 54 million in 1998 to 110 million (U.S. figures) in 2002 and are ever increasing.[1] 80% of adult Internet users, or about 93 million Americans, have searched for at least one of the 16 major health topics online. This makes the act of looking for health or medical information one of the most popular activities online, after email (93%) and researching a product or service before buying it (83%).[1] Studies in UK have shown that in November 1999, about 27% of adults were using the Internet on a regular basis[2] and a further survey found that 84% of all users felt the Internet was indispensable.[3] Apart from the community-based studies, even clinic-based studies have shown that one in four patients are accessing health information from the Internet and that half the patients who have computer access already search for medical information.[4]

The e-patient

The classical e-patient belongs to the younger age group. Women are more likely to have searched for a health topic than males.[1] The classical e-patient is better educated and is more likely to belong to the higher income group.[1] They search for specific medical condition (63%), medical treatment or procedure (47%), diet and nutrition (44%), exercise and fitness (36%)[1]. This is the group of patients who are very critical of their health problems. They have been brought up in this information age andmake optimum use of it.

The information age revolution

Before the information era, knowledge of medicine belonged only to the physician. The patient's role in his or her physician's office was simply to listen and comply. However, the Internet has opened up the doors of information like never before. There are innumerable sites ready to dish out detail information about the patient's condition. Not just basic information, the e-patient also has easy access to latest developments, various different treatment modalities available for the condition and can then make an intelligent choice. He approaches the physician with preconceived notions based on the Internet information.

The “Informed patient”

Due to the extensive resources available on the net, e-patient is a highly informed patient. They use information technology to take informed decisions for themselves as well as their elderly relatives. An informed patient is obviously an intelligent patient and wants to play a much more active part in the management of his condition.

The “Impatient patient-service at the speed of thought!”

This generation also makes up the impatient patient. They are used to cellulars, ATMs, broadband access, net banking. They are used to the pace of life and “at the click of the mouse” convenience in life. They are used to the convenient, personalized services provided by the other sectors like travel, finance etc. They want quick, convenient and personalized approach to their health problems too.

“Lobbying for care”

The e-patient has the latest information about the various modalities of treatment and advantages/disadvantages of each. Thus armed with this information, they lobby for a particular form of care.

Internet “The influential web of information”

A recent survey[5] showed how influential the internet has been in the patient's decision making:

Web information changed their decision

about how to treat their illness 70%

Web information led them to ask new questions

or take second opinion from another doctor 50%

Web information influenced their decision as to

whether or not to visit a doctor 28%

Web information improved the way they take care

of themselves 48%

 :: Changing dynamics of the “Doctor Patient roles” Top

It has been the traditional responsibility of the health care provider to integrate all the sources of medical information and convey to the patient at the time of the consultation. Traditionally, the relationship between the physician and the patient was asymmetrical; that is to say, doctors had significantly more information about medical conditions than their patients. Increasingly however this traditional sole professional filter is being bypassed by the patients who now have access to both external means of procuring health information as also to their health records. The locus of power in health care is shifting: instead of the doctor acting as sole manager of patient care (i.e., “the captain of the ship”), a consumerist model has emerged in which patients and their doctors are partners in managing the patient's care.[6] These changes are already finding resistance from the provider community.

Doctor patient relationship - The trust

Trust has been described as the scarcest of medical commodities.[7] Most of the 20th century, due to the lack of information, was the era of “Doctor knows the best”. However, come the information age and patients are empowered with information. The immediate fallout is the replacement of trust by skepticism and weariness. “Blind trust” is being replaced by “Informed trust”. In fact the first health contact which traditionally was the family physician; is slowly being replaced by the internet in many cases. Patients search the net and consult their physician armed with information. An survey of 500 online 'health seekers' revealed that 55% gathered online information before visiting a doctor, and 32% sought information about a particular doctor or hospital.[8] Of those who considered their online searches successful, 38% reported that it “led them to ask a doctor new questions or get a second opinion.”[8] European e-patient also seems to be catching up; a recent Internet survey on this website in five languages found that, among 6,699 European respondents, 73% indicated the physician as their preferred source of health information; but 45% also used the Internet, while 19% mentioned the Internet but not the doctor as preferred.[9]

Resistance to the changing dynamics

There has been a tremendous resistance from the health care professional to the changing dynamics of the doctor-patient relationship in this information age. The main concerns being the variable and unreliable nature of medical information on the net, the lost human touch and also the perception of the informed patient as the problem patient.

“The falling barriers”

More than a century ago, a similar backlash in health care accompanied introduction of another technology: the telephone. Soon after invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell, much cultural opposition to it was generated by physicians who doubted that the telephone could add value to medical practice. These physicians complained that answering calls would diminish the time available for in-person interaction with patients. Other physicians questioned whether patients would be willing to use the new technology. Some physicians worried that the telephone might destroy the patient-physician relationship.[10] Health care industry has been the last bastion in this information technology revolution and that is falling too.

The positive side

  • A study by McKay et al[11] found that patients who participated in an online diabetes education and support group lowered their blood glucose levels more than controls did.

  • Online support groups -For each e-patient seeking a listening “ear,” dozens of other patients offer encouragement. Studies of online support groups for cystic fibrosis patients,[12] amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients,[13] and single mothers[14] also showed that participants in these online support groups gained satisfaction and confidence in managing their medical condition.

  • A Harris Online poll found that patients who use the Internet to look for health information are more likely to ask more specific and informed questions of their doctors and to comply with prescribed treatment plans.[15]

  • Physicians Gerber and Eiser[16] postulate that the Internet age offers opportunities to improve the patient-physician relationship by sharing the burden of responsibility for knowledge. Patients still trust the information given by their physician than what is available on the net. The physician should now assume the role of Consultant helping his patient to sort the information available on the internet and arrive at informed and intelligent decisions.

  • Doctors have found that it may take less time to explain complex medical information to Internet users than to non-users.[17]

  • Keep your clinic open digitally!-technology has enabled organizations provide effective service on a 24 by 7 basis. ATM has done this to banking, online reservations to travel industry. “My clinic never sleeps!”- The same convenience can be provided to our patients if we net enable our services.

The flip side

  • Concern regarding reimbursement

  • Medical records privacy

  • Possible malpractice suits

Here are some suggestions[18] for the health care providers in dealing with the Internet literate patients -

  • Try to react in a positive manner to information from the internet

  • Warn about the variability in the quality and reliability of the information from the Internet.

  • Develop a strategy for dealing with the net information before encounter (eg asking the patients to mail the information before the consultation)

  • Accept consumer contribution as valuable.

Don't be-

  • Pessimistic

  • Be derogatory of the comments made by others on the Internet.

  • Refuse to accept the information provided by others on the Internet.

 :: Evidence based medicine-need of the hour Top

Thus the role of the Physician is that of a Consultant helping the patient through the tons of information of differing quality on the net. Not long ago, treatment decisions were based on personal experiences, anecdotal reports and a few case reports. But this is the age of information and information about various trials is available to anyone who has access to it. Not very far are the days when the net empowered patients start talking In terms of trial outcomes. Thus is the need to polish our own knowledge about research methodologies and various important trials. Results of some single trials could be biased and can be pointed at by the patients. A good solution to this is to have a look at the metaanalysis of these trials in the Cochrane database.

This type of patient is here to stay and the Life Sciences- Information technology convergence will shape up faster than we think. If not by themselves, health care providers will be dragged to the internet by their patients. Hence, as David Blumenthal, of Massachusetts General Hospital puts it; let's prove to the our patients that we are as good at surfing the web as listening to the heart or at appendicectomy.[19]

 :: References Top

1.Humphrey Taylor The Harris Poll ® #21, May1, 2002 [Accessed April 2004].  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Win Treese The Internet Index. [Accessed April 2004].  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Pitkow J, Kehoe C, Morton K, Zou L, Read W, Rossignac J GVUs 8th WWW survey results. [Accessed April 2004].  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.O′Connor JB, Johanson JF. Use of the Web for medical information by a gastroenterology clinic population. J Am Med Assoc 2000;284:1962-4.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Fox S, Rainie L. Pew Internet and American life Project. The online health care revolution: How the web helps Americans to take better care of themselves Sunday Nov 26 [Accessed April 2004].  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Reents S. Impacts of the Internet on the doctor-patient relationship: the rise of the Internet health consumer. New York: Cyber Dialogue; 1999. http://www.cyber [Accessed March 2004].  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Illingworth, P., "Trust: The Scarcest of Medical Resources", J. Med Philos 2002;27: 31-46.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Fox S, Rainie L. Pew Internet and American Life Project. "Vital Decisions", Summary of Findings, and Part Six: Impact, Washington, D.C., May 2002 [Accessed April 2004].  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Health and Age, "Europeans require more health information - Survey Results from Europe", [Accessed April 2004].  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Fischer CS. America calling: a social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press; 1992.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.McKay HG, King D, Eakin EG, Seeley JR, Glasgow RE. The diabetes network Internet-based physical activity intervention: a randomized pilot study. Diabetes Care 2001 ;24:1328-1334.   Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Johnson KB, Ravert RD, Everton A. Hopkins Teen central: assessment of an Internet-based support system for children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics 2001;107:E24.   Back to cited text no. 12  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
13.Feenberg AL, Licht JM, Kane KP, Moran K, Smith RA. The online patient meeting. J Neurol Sci 1996;139 Suppl:129-131.   Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Dunham PJ, Hurshman A, Litwin E, Gusella J, Ellsworth C, Dodd PW. Computer-mediated social support: single young mothers as a model system. Am J Community Psychol 1998;26:281-306.   Back to cited text no. 14  [PUBMED]  
15.Harris Interactive. The increasing impact of eHealth on consumer behavior. Health Care News 2001;1:1-9.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Gerber BS, Eiser AR. The patient-physician relationship in the Internet age: future prospects and the research agenda. J Med Internet Res 2001;3:e15.   Back to cited text no. 16  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]
17.Ferguson, T. "Online patient-helpers and physicians working together: a new partnership for high quality health care", BMJ 2000;321:129-32.   Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Pemberton PJ, Goldblatt J The internet and the changing roles of the doctors, patient and families. Med J Aust;169:594-5.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Information will change Doctor′s role in healing. Health Behaviour News Service. Release date: Sept 3,2002. [Accessed April 2004].  Back to cited text no. 19    

This article has been cited by
1 Attitudes and practices of dermatologists and primary care physicians who treat patients for MPHL: Results of a survey
Cash, T.F.
Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2010; 26(2): 345-354
2 The Evolution of healthcare applications in the Web 2.0 Era
Varlamis, I., Apostolakis, I.
Studies in Computational Intelligence. 2010; 309: 315-328
3 Factors affecting patientsæ graft choice in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Koh, H.S., In, Y., Kong, C.-G., Won, H.-Y., Kim, K.-H., Lee, J.-H.
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery. 2010; 2(2): 69-75
4 Medical informatics in the Web 2.0 Era
Varlamis, I., Apostolakis, I.
Studies in Computational Intelligence. 2008; 142: 513-522
5 Factors affecting nursesæ attitudes in Israel toward patients who present them with Internet medical information
Barnoy, S., Volfin-Pruss, D., Ehrenfeld, M., Kushnir, T.
Nursing Outlook. 2008; 56(6): 314-321
6 The use of websites for disseminating health information in developing countries: An experience from Sri Lanka
Kommalage, M., Thabrew, A.
International Journal of Electronic Healthcare. 2008; 4((3-4)): 327-338
7 Reflections on a well-traveled path: Self-awareness, mindful practice, and relationship-centered care as foundations for medical education
Dobie S
ACADEMIC MEDICINE. 2007; 82 (4): 422-427
8 Untangling the Web - The impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship
Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC
9 Perceptions of traditional information sources and use of the world wide web to seek health information: Findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey
Rains SA
10 Patient satisfaction with treatment after acute myocardial infarction: Role of psychosocial Factors
Barry LC, Lichtman JH, Spertus JA, et al.
PSYCHOSOMATIC MEDICINE. 2007; 69 (2): 115-123
11 Information prescriptions: a barrier to fulfillment
Leisey MR, Shipman JP
12 Relief for the E-patient? Legislative and judicial remedies to fill HIPAAs privacy gaps
Nath SW
GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW. 2006; 74 (3): 529-552
13 The hateful patient revisited: Relevance for 21st century medicine
Strous RD, Ulman AM, Kotler M


Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article
Online since 12th February '04
© 2004 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Official Publication of the Staff Society of the Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow