Guest posting by Sharon Syau
Click here to open video.
Art and Medicine
Guest posting by Rachel Marren
A classic debate in the medical community, and one particularly relevant with today’s push towards patient-centered care, is whether medicine is an art or a science. Does being a good physician result from using personal judgment in evaluating each patient as an individual or systematically following clinical guidelines? A number of studies indicate that, although it is important to generate positive interpersonal patient-physician relationships, strict adherence to protocol leads to the best patient outcomes.[1]
But what about the role of creative art and aesthetics in medicine? Research strongly supports creative outlets such as music, visual art, and writing as expository tools through which patients can ultimately improve their health and well-being.[2] I was introduced to the power of art in healthcare by Dr. Marcia Brennan, Professor of Art History and Religion at Rice and the Artist in Residence at M.D. Anderson’s Palliative Care Center. She works with terminal patients to help them express their thoughts at the end of their lives through words and visual art. Although the value of this work is difficult to quantitate given that these patients ultimately pass away, Dr. Brennan’s anecdotes about the serenity she helps her patients find are tremendously compelling.
Viewing and reading these pieces, there is an unbelievable beauty, one that, for me, calls attention to the lack of recognition of aesthetics in modern medicine. In a formalist sense, we can see this beauty in the following images of a bone cancer cell,[3] a kidney stone, [4] and a bacterium. [5]
The haunting beauty in these images is quite apparent—they are aesthetically enchanting, and, yet, represent the pain of disease that we are all familiar with. Given that illness can be considered a central aspect of our shared human experience, I would urge healthcare providers to call upon shared experiences to build deeper—and more beautiful—connections with their patients.
[1] Pearl, Robert, MD. “Medicine Is An Art, Not A Science: Medical Myth Or Reality?” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 12 June 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
[2] Stuckey, Heather L., and Jeremy Nobel. “The connection between art, healing, and public health: A review of current literature.” American journal of public health 100.2 (2010): 254.
[3] Burnette, Dylan T. A Crawling Bone Cancer Cell at 8000x Magnification. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville. Nikon Small World. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
[4] Mackenzie, Kevin. Kidney Stone. 2014. Wellcome Image Awards 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
[5] Ben-Jacob, Eshel. Paenibacillus Dendritiformis. Smithsonian. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
Engaged Scientists
Guest posting by Kylie Balotin
Our Medical Media Arts course often talks about patient engagement, but this is not the only area where engagement needs to occur. A few weeks ago I attended a lecture over the coverage of infectious diseases by the media at Baker Institute at Rice University. One of the major topics that stuck with me the most after listening to the speakers was the idea that scientists need to become more engaged with the public. As an aspiring biomedical researcher, I have never given much thought to what the job would entail other than trying to make new discoveries about topics that I’m interested in and getting published in scientific journals. Is there more to this profession than that?
Both of the speakers argued that there is. One speaker began his segment by stating that most Americans cannot identify a living scientist and that even fewer Americans can name a center of biomedical research. This is sad because there is so much great work being done in the scientific community. We are learning more new things about the world we live in and medicine every day, yet there is still a lot of misinformation being spread in the public. For example, there were a lot of misconceptions surrounding the Ebola cases in the United States, which scientists and medical professionals could have done more to correct rather than having the reporters and congressmen sensationalize this disease. It was not enough for scientists to just have tiny segments during news reports; they needed to speak out more in order to make sure that the public understood how Ebola could be transmitted and how the disease worked.
Scientists are missing out on great opportunities to spread knowledge and correct misinformation. According to a Pew Report from 2013, medical professionals and scientists are in the top five most esteemed professions by the public (Street et al.). They have a large influence over society, and the people will trust them when they speak out about issues. Unfortunately, scientists largely find themselves caught in a cycle of applying for grants and conducting research, and they don’t often take the time to engage with the public regularly. According to another Pew Report from 2015, about 20% scientists regularly talk to reporters and less than 50% of scientists regularly communicate through social media (Rainie et al.). Scientists who believe that the public is interested in their research or that their research is involved in debates on the media are more likely to speak out about their research, but the percentage of engaged scientists still remain low (only 44% of scientists whose research has at least some debate in the media speaks often with citizens) (Rainie et al.). Within the biomedical field specifically, only 35% often talk to citizens, 19% often talk to reporters, 48% use social media, and 21% blog( Rainie et al.). This is extremely low considering all the research that is being conducted in this field and how much health affects everyone’s lives.
It’s time for scientists to start speaking to the public more often. We need to learn how to communicate effectively in terms that the general public can understand and ways that we can communicate to the public more often. Scientists are not limited to just speaking to reporters; they can utilize the Internet and forms of social media to help spread information while still conducting research. Scientists have the ability to educate the public with correct knowledge, but they are limited by the fact that they do not speak out often enough. It is not enough to only conduct research; it is not enough to wait for news outlets to approach us; it is not enough to hope the public in interested and engaged enough to look up our research. It is time to start incorporating engaging with the public often into scientific careers.
References
Rainie, Lee et al. “How Scientists Engage.” Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.
Street, 1615 L. et al. “Public Esteem for Military Still High.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.
Google MD
Guest posting by Sanjana Puri
Just Google it. This all too common phrase of the 21st century has become an integral part of our daily lives. Dying to know who invented toaster strudel? Google it. Need to know if a rash is poison ivy? Google it. With sites like letmegooglethatforyou.com that mock those who don’t merely Google, it’s clear the search engine dominates the field. And now, it’s turned medical.
Google recently launched a knowledge graph (a knowledge base used to enhance its search results with semantic-search information gathered from a wide variety of sources) that would streamline the task of searching for health relevant information for common conditions.
“..when you ask Google about common health conditions, you’ll start getting relevant medical facts right up front from the Knowledge Graph. We’ll show you typical symptoms and treatments, as well as details on how common the condition is—whether it’s critical, if it’s contagious, what ages it affects, and more. For some conditions you’ll also see high-quality illustrations from licensed medical illustrators.”
To test it out, I googled a relatively common disease that wasn’t so familiar to me, “lupus”. In my search, I found a new feature, a nicely laid out diagram of basic and medically relevant information:
Watch out WebMD, Google just stepped up its health info. game. From symptoms to prevalence, Google has really out done itself in its layout of information from some of the world’s best doctors (Google, Mayo Clinic, etc.). Thinking back to my anatomy class last semester, this tool synthesizes all the basic information we learned about various diseases in a nice, neat package. The diagram even lists specific psychological symptoms and prescription drugs many would not even think to search.
Leveling the medical information playing field for patients just got one-click easier. In my first blog, I discussed the option for patients to access personal health records in between doctor visits. Now, we can quickly access personal health records and medically reliable information to be better informed patients.
There are caveats, of course, as with any internet search. While applying to college and searching for admissions information, I used a site called College Confidential, the web’s premier community for college-bound individuals. Here are some caveats I realized after using College Confidential, which greatly parallel some guidelines to using Google’s Knowledge Graph:
- Don’t take anything you read at face value: Google may seem all-knowing, but when it comes to your health, conditions vary, and it’s best to consult a physician.
- Do utilize other resources on the site: While Google has done an excellent job of consolidating reliable and relevant health information, it still provides numerous search results. Be sure to peruse other health-related sources for more holistic answers.
Nonetheless, Google has provided the world another great knowledge source. The digital age is an exciting time to be a patient, with numerous outlets of medical information available. Even for providers, who now have access to facts for a quick review.
Empower yourself with health knowledge.
Just Google it.
Bringing Care to Rural America
Guest posting by Allyson Knapper
Despite popular belief, having insurance does not guarantee access to care. This is especially true for the 72 million people who live in rural America, where their only options for care are small regional hospitals that often lack updated technology and have a shortage of specialists. In the last few years these hospitals have been faced with even greater strain, as the passage of the Affordable Care Act has expanded the patient load of these hospitals without providing the proper means to care for them. In order to address the issue of a lack of medical resources in these communities, many have turned to Telemedicine, which is the use of electronic communications to provide remote care to patients. While studies have shown that this technology can be used to alleviate physician shortage and catch problems through remote monitoring, I believe that this is only a partial solution, one that presents three major problems of its own:
1. The Technology Requirement
In order for a patient to take advantage of all that Telemedicine has to offer, they must have a computer with high speed internet access. This requirement leads to a new form of health disparities, as 76% of the people who don’t have broadband live in rural areas.1 As a result members of the target population will still continue to be medically underserved.
2. The limitations of treating a patient from a distance
While studies have shown that some services such as physical therapy and mental health counseling provided remotely can be just as effective as the in-person office visits, there is still a limit to what can be done online, especially in the case of emergency situations. Yes, Telemedicine can be used to identify abnormalities, but its advantages stop there. Since many illnesses require a doctor to treat their patient in person, it can be argued that Telemedicine serves as a Band-Aid and doesn’t truly address the underlying issue–that these communities lack the medical resources that are needed in an emergency situation.
3. The desire for in-person interaction
People are resistant to change, especially when for years they have been used to doing something a certain way. In my opinion, this will be the greatest challenge to Telemedicine. A study published in the Telemedicine and e-Health Journal showed that 50% of patients who participated in a study on remote health monitoring preferred office visits.2 When questioned why, they stated that they missed interacting with the doctors and feared an increase in misdiagnoses. This shows that even if Telemedicine becomes a wide-spread option, people may fail to take utilize it.
All things considered, Telemedicine has the ability to provide care to millions of patients who otherwise wouldn’t have it. But I believe that this technology shouldn’t be the only form of care available in rural communities, but instead should be used as a supplement to traditional medical offices. I am curious to see how others will respond to Telemedicine as it becomes more widely used.
1. http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.2/rural-americans-have-inferior-internet-access
2. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/tmj.2012.0064?journalCode=tmj