At the moment, I feel like I spend a lot of my time obsessively overthinking my injury. I see people online who have literally shattered a bone in traumatic injury bounce back faster than I’m able to. I constantly feel like I’m treading the line of too much, too soon, and live in stress – if you pardon the pun – of re-stressing my stress fracture.
I’m hyper-aware that I’m 5-7 times more likely to get another bone stress injury due to my previous history with one, not to mention the 2 times higher likelihood from being female. I’ve read it can take up to 2 years before my bone mass reaches the density it was prior to injury and I’ve read that over 50 percent of people don’t return to exercise ever again, if a stress fracture completes. These numbers, statistics and case studies live rent-free in my head, and in a world of easily accessible information, it would barely take me little more than a second to source another anxiety-inducing statistic.
The wealth of information available online is an absolute privilege. To be able to listen to podcasts, read studies, view social media or watch webinars on virtually any topic shouldn’t ever be taken for granted. However, on the flip side, having so much information one click away comes with some very serious problems. One Google search quickly sends you down a rabbit hole of information, far too much, too quickly, which is impossible to digest and becomes increasingly overwhelming. Factor in that not all the information out there is accurate, and we have serious consequences.
Finding the balance
Two questions I asked myself about a year ago:
1. How do I find the optimal state of intaking knowledge?
2. How do I stop knowledge from consuming me?
The short answer is this – the limit for each person is different. What overwhelms me may not overwhelm you. However, we are all human, we generally have the same biological mechanisms, and there is, therefore, some evidence from research to help answer these questions generically, which can be tailored to you.
On a neuroscience basis, we encode information (take knowledge in) best when in a focussed mindset, no distractions, and actively engaging with the material. Research varies, but the average person can enter deep focus up to 90 minutes, a few times a day. With practice, this can be increased, but generally speaking, only limited time within our day can be spent truly focussing. Without a doubt, this is the best time to research and process information. In this state, it should feel manageable to maintain concentration and information should be easy to recall. These are two signs that you are in an optimal state for intaking knowledge. At any point, if knowledge becomes blurry, concentration lapses or you get physical signs such as a headache, it’s time to stop.
For my second question, this proved more difficult to answer, and I truly believe no generic answer suffices. However, some things that work for me: using trusted sources (published journals, authors), only dedicating X amount of minutes to reading, turning off my notifications and only having one tab open at once have all helped me control the amount of information I process. Similarly, taking breaks to consolidate the knowledge and truly form my own opinion has been vastly helpful in avoiding being swayed by clickbait headlines or conclusions based on inadequate evidence.
In the context of health
Despite equipping myself with the knowledge on how to deal with, well, knowledge, I still struggle on occasion with letting myself get carried away searching, particularly when my health is the concerning factor. This isn’t uncommon, psychological studies have shown that worry is one of the strongest motivators for information seeking- a reaction to the worry is to seek a solution via knowledge searching. When this is uncontrolled it can lead to intensive searching, exposing an individual to too much information, far surpassing their cognitive threshold. Processing (or trying to process) too much information has been linked with mental fatigue, a reduction in reading accurate, verified sources of information, and can in turn, result in hyper-fixation on negative information. This doesn’t help to address the original worry, and in fact, this only acts to fuel it.
In today’s world, we have more information than ever at our fingertips and we certainly should use this. But, information is only useful if it’s accurate, and only if we use this effectively, efficiently and without eroding the all important critical thinking that we must keep a hold of.
The issues with online health information and self-diagnosis
The Covid-19 pandemic perfectly illustrated the masses of misinformation that can be spread, and the serious consequences that it can have.
Ironically, anyone can post online. I have no medical degree, but I don’t proclaim to. I do my best to fully research a topic, and use my background in biology and public health to translate it and form my own opinion. However, too many people claim online to be medical professionals, yet have no background, and spread nothing more than harmful misinformation to vulnerable audiences.
Unfortunately, we live in a time where access to services is an issue, and that should not be disregarded. I’m fully of the belief that Covid-19, the change to services following the pandemic and the immense pressure on delivery in the NHS has drastically influenced behaviour in the public health space. People will take to an Instagram influencer before a verified health campaign or TikTok before their GP. This must be addressed. We need health literacy, we need information to be spread on all platforms, but only factual, valid, accurate information that helps empower people.
With the rise of AI, I’m seeing more and more people dismiss the advice from health professional – experts in the fields of nutrition, diet, orthopaedics, and instead turn to ChatGPT. This has a place, but in making informed decisions on your health, it does not. ChatGPT may collate some sources of accurate information, and it may not be totally off the mark in every aspect of a response, but at best, any response is generic, and any information on health certainly isn’t tailored to you or your circumstances. I am the strongest advocate for personalised care, of which AI is not.
One study I read showed that over 70% of individuals were willing to self-diagnose their health issues using AI. Another study I read found that ChatGPT was unable to consistently and reproducibly diagnose 5 common orthopaedic conditions; and another study demonstrated that it only got common health conditions right less than 50% of the time. Whilst ChatGPT doesn’t have a waiting room, is free, and can be accessed from the comfort of your own home, it also doesn’t have an accurate diagnostic mechanism.
(At time of writing, I have just put the symptoms for my tibial stress fracture into ChatGPT; it’ diagnosed me with a ruptured achilles tendon, an ankle fracture or deep vein thrombosis. I added that I was a runner, training for a marathon, and it has updated to: achilles tendon rupture, calf muscle tear or ankle sprain. When I said I was sure it was bone, it updated to suggest a peroneal tendon injury or compartment syndrome. Not one mention of a stress fracture.)
Practicality going forward
For using AI to summarise research papers on the biochemistry behind the newest cancer treatment (although, be careful in the biases of AI), to accessing free health programmes such as Couch to 5k or to read a blog post by your favourite celebrity who opens up about their own struggles, and raises awareness for mental health – the internet and AI can be great. Undoubtedly, information around health can have positive, meaningful and impactful changes to the way people live. However, we need change. We need change to ensure that digital literacy is improved, we need change to health systems and we need change to online platforms.
- Public health campaigns must be accessible. The stop smoking campaign I see in my local GP is informative, engaging and accessible, but I couldn’t find a version online. We must adapt. If people are accessing information online, we must provide the information, from reputable sources: NHS, researchers, medical professionals etc, in an online format. If people can create a following on social media putting out misinformation, we must create a following putting out accurate information.
- Digital literacy must be improved. We must do better at providing people with the tools to identify misinformation. We must promote the practice of critical thinking so that everyone can draw their own conclusions, and are not reliant on the information provided by clickbait headlines, or inaccurate posts on social media, and have the confidence and ability to question AI.
- Social media platforms must do more. The spread of misinformation and the quantity of misinformation must be tackled. Vulnerable people are accessing free content on social media and making ill-informed decisions that affect their health and future wellbeing. We must encourage social media platforms to promote verified sources when it comes to matters such as our health. We should encourage transparency of all sources, in all important matters and, where possible, fact-checking partnerships need to be encouraged. These measures maintain free speech, but ensure that people are aware of potentially misleading information.
Some useful research:
Evaluating the Reliability of ChatGPT for Health-Related Questions: A Systematic Review