8/12 | on data gathering

By about 10am, we were all assembled @ VKS for a lecture by Sally Wyatt on health and the internet, focused on data gathering. She talked about a project she worked on on IHTs (innovative health technologies).

This was a two-year project, which took place in Brighton (SE England). The study looked at patients prescribed HRT (hormone replacement therapy) (in women) and Viagra (for men). The objects of the study were as follows:
1) assess the ways in which patients access health info
1) assess the ways in which advantages, disadvantages, and uncertainties of these [pharmaceutical interventions are interpreted by a range of patients
3) explore implications of on/off-line for info for knowledge/power relationships and for subsequent treatment outcomes
4) analyze the above in the context of patterns of social inclusion/exclusion in relation to both healthcare and the internet

Basically, the study was looking at the role of ICTs (information communications technologies) in the distribution of health information and what role that plays in creating the "informed patient." Also considered is the role of the "digital divide" , the inequality of access, and qua.ity of health info available online.

One of the things I found most interesting was the obvious difference in health care culture and how that influences how research is approached. In the states, there are often incentives (like cash!) for participating in/completeing research studies. However, in Britain, incentives are rarely provided. The seems to stem from the fundamental fact that in their healthcare system, no money changes hand. The patients do not pay the doctors directly--that's what taxation is for. Similarly, it would seem odd to the patients to receive money from healthcare. They tend to view healthcare and thus the participation in medical research, as a citizenship issue.

Another interesting point brought up was the difference between the states and Britain in terms of drug advertising. While in the US, a person is bombarded (TV, magazines, radio, you-name-it) with ads selling various dugs, direct appeal/marketing of prescription drugs is not allowed in Britain. I bet that doesn't stop the Viagra spam mails though!

Also, researchers don't have to deal with the IRB system we do (and did!) have to deal with. The researchers approached practitioners, having them ask their patients to contact the research team if they were interested in participating. Well, the issue with this happened to be that while the general practitioners were willing to pass on letters about the study to women undergoing HRT, they refused to do so for men on Viagra. Turns out, the doctors were not following the guidelines set for the prescription of Viagra and they didn't want the researchers or anybody else for that matter, to find out!

Sally also talked about their research process:
-gaining access- ethical clearance
-developing interview schedules
-interviews
-transcription- summaries- analysis
-joint authorship

It's nice to realize that we are slowly working our way through the process.

Sally had several other wise words/tips/points I really appreciated/have noticed:
1) Research consist of good and bad luck
2) more quotes doesn't make for a stronger argument
3) most people are not reliable/don't do what they are asked, so don't depend on it

In closing, I'll admit while I realize I had a blog post to do, I forgot the video component. In the afternoon, after visiting a couple squats in our attempts to gather more data, my group and I sat down along the canal to jot down notes and gather our thoughts. The video captures the moment and illustrates a quaintly Dutch scene: bicycle, canal, and distinctive buildings.