H1N1 and New Media

Remember the old days when we got most of our health information from a brief television news story or newspaper article or from a friend or even from a doctor?  Buzz back then was people talking in line at the grocery store or at work.

H1N1, the swine flu?  It's all-a-Twitter.

Here's a story out of Boston on swine flue videos posted by the CDC and the impact they are having on viewers.  As the article notes, while these aren't Susan Boyle Youtube numbers, the videos are being seen.  Health officials can't wait for the old, traditional methods, according to one specialist:

“The traditional model of one-way communication, with knowledge developed on high, has been overthrown by new media,’’ said Jay Winsten, a Harvard School of Public Health professor. “We have to be part of the conversation, or it’s going to go on without us.’’

So videos and social networking can find people where they are.  This is an improvement over shotgunning commercials and news stories.  That makes sense, and I assume we're seeing more public knowledge -- and misinformation from the crazy folks on the Internet as well.  That's the good news-bad news scenario here.  A channel so useful to professionals to get out serious information will also be misused by the crazies who see conspiracy in every story.  Health information is a perfect place to study not only what people know but also what people know that's right, or wrong. 

In other words, there will be a growth industry in those who want to study misinformation.  Fact-checking web sites prove this.  It's time now to explore not only who believes obviously incorrect info, but where they got it and how they go about reinforcing those beliefs.  Scholars into selective exposure, attention, and retention can have a field day here, from whether Obama is a secret Muslim to death panels to all the rest.  We know people believe what they want to believe and will alter a news account or other info to fit their predispositions, but never has it been so easy to feed those inaccurate beliefs, or more likely holders of those beliefs will ignore accurate messages.

The Mess of Methodology

Doing social science is fun and frustrating, but nothing is as difficult as nailing your methodology. I work in media effects and political knowledge. It's messy stuff trying to tease out relationships, so when I saw this New York Times piece today about drinking and health, it struck me as eerily familiar. As you may know, drinking in moderation is often associated with health benefits. But ... moderate drinkers also tend to not smoke, to exercise, and either avoid or do all the stuff you're supposed to avoid or do to stay healthy.

So does booze really help? I like to think so. Helps me rationalize my evenings with wine, beer, bourbon, or of course the daddy of all drinks -- single-malt Scotch.

But I'm talking research methodology. Or as a sociologist quoted in the article says:

“The moderate drinkers tend to do everything right — they exercise, they don’t smoke, they eat right and they drink moderately,” said Kaye Middleton Fillmore, a retired sociologist from the University of California, San Francisco, who has criticized the research. “It’s very hard to disentangle all of that, and that’s a real problem.”

Yup. The same can be said for studying what people know. Knowledgeable folks in the first place tend to learn more from the same material than those with little knowledge. Motivation is a huge factor, as is cognitive ability (often measured as formal education, but that's problematic as well).

Disentangling all that equals heartache or a lifetime job. I'm going with the latter, though I often feel the former -- which usually means I need a drink.

McCain, Debates, and Hospitals

What do people know from watching the televised presidential debates? If nothing else, John McCain always opens by telling us who's in the hospital. I'm not sure anyone measures political knowledge via the health status of noted political figures, but if they do, the public sure is informed.

Of course I'm being picky, but it's either that or actually attend to the debate.