Whilst Dr Google is undoubtedly the first port of call for many of us when we feel under the weather, it’s reliability often leaves a lot to be desired.  Indeed, a few years ago, a campaign led by a group of Belgian doctors urged the public not to use the web to ‘self-diagnose’.

Despite that, the popularity of Dr Google remains undimmed, so a recent paper, from researchers at the University of Michigan, that set out to examine the self-help sites on the market for accuracy should be of interest.

It compared over 40 of the most popular sites against the latest evidence from randomized control trials.  The analysis includes a range of sites, many of which offer more than educational help for people with various conditions.  Indeed, many of these structure information in the same way that courses do, with interactive modules and assignments to complete.

“This list is just a start,” the authors say. “New trials are completed on an ongoing basis, so we suspect that there will be additional websites with effective interventions added to this list over time. It is important that procedures are in place so that people know where to find health information that is backed up by science.”

Information lag

Sadly, the study found that nearly 80% of the effective online approaches to self-help, as proved by RCT evidence, aren’t actually available to the public.  The hope is that the analysis will help clinicians to steer their patients towards the best tools to support them between visits.

This was often because once the grant funding for studies was used up, the ongoing support for web hosting and other technical support vanished.  The authors believe more support needs to be offered to ensure such resources endure.

The sites analyzed offer a range of advice for both patients and health professionals.  For example, painACTION which was created using funds from the National Institutes of Health, offers resources for both patients and physicians, and was shown to help patients manage chronic pain.

“If there is an internet program that can help someone improve their health and there’s little extra cost involved in maintaining it, we should provide more avenues to keep these sites available. It could represent potentially great cost effectiveness globally. In addition, we have to do a better job of letting people know that there are evidence-based sites to help them,” the team conclude.