Never before have we needed reliable information like today. Philip Rings, Chairman of the Federation national of Orders of doctors surgeons and dentists, in the first part of the interview at the Festival of Food Journalism asked that journalists and doctors learn from the experience gained in this year, where Covid was accompanied by the "infodemic", the epidemic of bad information, never critical and little verified by unprepared journalists who have chased virologists who have become stars.
Doctor Anelli, when everything is under control will the great interest in news about Covid translate into a greater interest in health and scientific information?
“This is what we hope for, even if the risk of wasting this opportunity for citizen engagement with science is really high. Let me explain: in this moment people are hungry for information, and this causes the production of a mass of information that is often contradicting each other. They need certainties: certainties that science, which by its nature advances by trial and error, cannot always give, and even less towards a new and in many ways unknown disease. And they have a very strong desire for everything to end, for the world to return to the way it was before, perhaps even better. For this, people become extremely receptive to the sellers of illusions, who exploit the evidence, picking flower, what, in English, is called “cherry picking”, to corroborate their pseudoscientific theses. And it causes a sort of rejection of health information, especially institutional information, sometimes seen as mere propaganda.
We must be careful, create a climate of real trust, which is obtained, in the long term, only with intellectual honesty and simple and transparent communication. Communication that must not be one-way, from top to bottom, but must welcome and respond to questions and doubts, even those that seem more banal. And it must give the user the tools of critical thinking and the scientific method, to enable him to distinguish the sources and to orient himself in the sea of information.
An article published on April 19 on the Corriere della Sera, signed by Angelo Panebianco, and entitled "the weak trench of the no vax is a cultural border" explains the situation well. “In the refusal or skepticism of our compatriots - he writes, referring to vaccines - both contingent factors, linked to the situation of the moment, and causes of wider and more ancient origin seem to weigh.
Among the contingent factors there were conflicting news on the danger or otherwise of this or that vaccine, news that, at certain moments, seemed to obscure the fact that the really dangerous thing, the most lethal of all, was and remains Covid. Then there is what I would call anxiety indigestion. It can also be assumed, following certain communications workers, that news (whatever the topic) is not real news if it is not cut so as to spread the maximum possible anxiety. But then you have to deal with the self-defense strategies that many people inevitably put into action sooner or later. Eventually, all this anxiety ends up generating addiction or pure and simple refusal to take what is communicated to us seriously again. In extreme cases (at least some of the no vaxes probably fall into this category) we end up thinking that there is no relationship between the anxious world of communication and the real world ”.
Among the structural factors, the author puts the poor "health literacy", that "scientific illiteracy" which is still widespread in our country, even among educated and graduated people. At one time it would have been said that the cause of those shortcomings consisted in the predominant humanistic-literary orientation of our school curricula. Unsuitable for enhancing scientific vocations and also, more simply, for enabling people to understand what the scientific method consists of. This classic observation about our educational system now holds true to a certain extent. Because of the decline, documented, for example, by the results of the Invalsi tests, and which involves many schools of the same humanistic paths. In any case, the school, both yesterday and today, does not provide, if not to a very few, the necessary tools to deal with science and its applicative implications, to understand its implications ".
What role does the doctor play in informing citizens about health? Could GPs improve patient information? What is missing? Time, organization in the clinics? The right training to communicate?
“This is where the doctor comes in. The doctor has two great assets, which give him enormous potential in the field of health communication: the authority, which derives from scientific skills and knowledge, and the trust that the patient places in him. Furthermore, the family doctor establishes a particularly intimate and continuous care relationship with the patient, which is an integral part of the healing process and prevention paths. We must not forget the extraordinary contribution that territorial care offers in terms of health and that make the National Health System unique in its kind, through an organizational model of proximity and free treatment, associated with a doctor-patient relationship which, guaranteeing the citizen's right to free choice of their doctor, allows for therapeutic continuity over time which in itself produces an improvement in the mortality rate. I recommend this link: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/6/e021161. Doctors accumulate knowledge about each patient, which allows them to give targeted advice to that person. Continuity in the treatment with the same doctor has the effects, according to the BMJ, patient satisfaction, better health promotion, greater therapeutic adherence, reduces hospitalizations. And, through these factors, it lowers the mortality rate.
The Tech4Life survey, promoted by Confindustria Medical Devices, carried out by Community Research & Analysis and published today, reaffirms the primacy of doctors, and in particular of family doctors, as an authoritative source of information on health. The family doctor is the reference for 76,6% of Italians who want information on their state of health, while 11,8% go to a specialist doctor. And, if we talk about the reliability of the source, at the top of the podium there are still general practitioners, who receive the preference of 44,5% of Italians followed by the specialist, with 38%.
On the other hand, information on health, clear, transparent, understandable, calibrated on the patient, is also a duty of the doctor, sanctioned by the Code of Ethics, which dedicates the entire Title IV to it, as well as various other articles along the body. of precepts.
However, communication between doctor and patient is not always fully effective or best expresses its potential for improving the life and health of the citizen. We have to say that again little attention is paid, in the doctor's training course, to communication techniques and tools. In addition, the fast pace of work, the excessive bureaucratic load, the work organizations lead to reduce the communication time. However, as our Code teaches, it should be considered time of treatment. Our site Doctormaeveroche was born also for this: as an additional tool for the doctor to answer patients' questions and doubts, having the best scientific evidence available at all times, just a click away ".
What role will information play on the prevention of diseases, including those of viral origin?
«The communication of health and the correctness and effectiveness of information on these issues is considered by the World Health Organization as one of the fundamental strategies for promoting health. This means, on the one hand, primary and secondary prevention of diseases, communicable but also cardiovascular and oncological ones. On the other hand, the adoption of lifestyles that increase the physical and mental well-being of citizens. That is why so great is the responsibility of those who have the task of informing, be they doctors, journalists, communicators.
Health information is an important and at the same time complex and very delicate task. The aspects that touch on this theme involve, together with scientific and health issues in the strict sense, also economic, financial, legal, ethical, bioethical, environmental issues, as well as the quality of services and more generally the whole system of social relations. . Therefore, the guarantee of the correctness and completeness of the set of news, comments, insights, services and anything else that reaches the user becomes decisive, as the result of a presumably reliable communication.
In your opinion, is journalism ready? Could doctors contribute to the training of journalists?
"Same to you it is determined that the world of information and that of healthcare dialogue in order not to trigger sensationalist short circuits to the detriment of the patient and the citizen.
Sometimes, however, due to a dysfunctional dialogue between these two worlds, the user receives a fragmented, dystonic, disorienting communication.
And, in this context, they are the winners the "fake news", The" hoaxes "that spread like real diseases, in a" viral "way.
If the fight against false news is the duty and ethical duty of every journalist, it is all the more important and necessary that journalists who are dealing with issues of science and health have all the tools at their disposal to recognize the truthfulness and authoritativeness of sources and to "unmask" the "hoaxes" concerning such peculiar and specialized fields.
For this it is necessary that i journalists dealing with these issues are not occasionally loaned to the sector but specifically trained, in order to provide the user with all the information for a free and informed decision. For years, Fnomceo has been organizing joint training courses for doctors and journalists, accredited as part of their respective continuing professional training programs. Courses in which there is not a teacher and a pupil, but you learn all together and from each other, to defend the constitutionally protected rights of citizens: health, self-determination, information ».
