Medical Communication: From Theoretical Model To Practical Exploration. Tao Wang
prevention includes interventions that limit disability or enhance rehabilitation from disease, injury, or disability if a patient has elevated diabetes that was not controlled by diet or exercise. Then, the patient may be referred to other specialists to control the blood sugar and avoid complications. Medical communication not only spreads the treatment of diseases but also pays more attention to the prevention of diseases. Thus, everyone should be the target of medical communication since healthy living and behavioral methods are beneficial not only to patients but also to everyone. Long-term persistence may also reduce the incidence of many chronic diseases.
Third, communicate what?
Medical communication has a strict choice of the content. Although medical knowledge is all-encompassing and the latest scientific research results are endless, the content suitable for science communication should be strictly controlled. The purpose of medical communication is to disseminate authoritative, accurate, and scientific medical knowledge to the layman, thereby promoting their healthy behavior and maintaining their health. The medical science knowledge that is still inconclusive, is not suitable as content of medical communication. The content of medical communication should be definitive medical science knowledge, including the contents of current medical books, dictionaries, and medical-related national laws. This is the “gold standard” for medical communication.
Content that does not meet the criteria of “conclusive medical science popularization” includes the following:
The research content that is still in the academic debate and not coming into a conclusive stage should be avoided. For example, is genetically modified food safe? Transgene is the transfer of one or several exogenous genes into a specific organism by genetic techniques. Foods produced by using genetically modified organisms as raw materials are genetically modified foods. The safety of genetically modified foods has been controversial since its birth in the United States in the 1980s. Because there are many ingredients in genetically modified foods, which have never been found in traditional foods, countries have developed more stringent safety inspection standards than for general food. Since there is currently no authoritative official conclusion on the safety of genetically modified foods, for the field of medical communication, it is clearly not suitable for promotion and dissemination. We believe that citizens should have the right to know about cutting-edge scientific issues; however, the academic debate is likely to cause public confusion and anxiety and it cannot provide good guidance for healthy behavior, which is far from the purpose of medical communication. Considering that citizens in China are generally at a low level of science literacy, the content of academic contention should be avoided in medical communication.
Recent literature publications and reports, including those published in authoritative medical journals, should be avoided. Just like cutting-edge research in other fields of science, cutting-edge research in medicine is exploratory, which means many of the contents published in the literature have not undergone the check of time and practice. The Han Chunyu incident is a vivid example. In May 2016, Chinese researcher Han Chunyu published the genome editing results of the NgAgo system in the world’s top academic journal, Nature Biotechnology, and received much attention at home and abroad. Some media even called it the Nobel Prize–winning experiment. However, about 20 Chinese and foreign scholars later questioned that the experiment could not be repeated, which led to the retraction of the paper from the journal. From this point of view, the latest papers published in authoritative academic journals may not stand the test of time. At the same time, the most cutting-edge scientific research has a big gap in the lives of citizens. Therefore, we do not advocate the direct dissemination of medical science popularization content in the academic literature to citizens without the test of time. In September 2018, an Egyptian astrologist together with American scientists completed the study “A homing system targets therapeutic T cells to brain cancer” and published it in the top international journal, Nature. The paper claimed that cell therapy has been successfully applied and the technology effectively treats brain tumors. This technology is realized by an immune cell engineered by a so-called “homing system” which passes through the blood–brain barrier and enters the brain tumor entity. The immune cell performs targeted killing of brain tumor cells. In January 2019, an expert from the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom published a positive review of the abovementioned article in another top journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, and introduced the technology to the peers enthusiastically. However, this article in Nature has been questioned by many medical experts at home and abroad. The editorial office of Nature launched a survey and retracted the article on February 20, 2019. On the same day, the editorial office of The New England Journal of Medicine retracted the review of the positive significance of the technology. Even papers published in top international journals may be questioned. There is considerable risk in disseminating content that has not been tested by time. This confirms that medical content that has not been precipitated over time is not suitable for direct dissemination to citizens.
We advocate time as the standard for testing truth. Take in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology as an example. This technique was first created in 1978 by British professor Robert Edwards. It was not until 2010 that he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for the creation of this technology. A rigorous scientific attitude should be adopted in the field of medical communication similar to that of the Nobel Prize. In the 1980s, when IVF technology was founded at the beginning due to the unpredictability of technology, medical communication is not suitable for the dissemination and popularization of this technology. Today, 40 years later, time has proven that IVF technology is a very mature technology. It brings millions of families with children and vitality that might have been missing. IVF technology is well suited to the content and topic of communication in the field of medical communication. Although advocating time as the standard for testing truth, we must modify the content to keep pace with the times. This is the timeliness of information. Medicine is constantly improving and developing. If the content is still in the book 30 years ago, it is correct but ridiculous. IVF technology at present has much progress compared to 40 years ago, so we should spread the technology based on the current situation. When we do medical communication, the content and technology disseminated should be improved and changed along with the progress in proportion.
The reason why medical communication is so strict about the content of communication is that the rights to live and to be healthy are both the highest rights of everyone. When we were doing medical communication, citizens may accept the communication with a very trusting attitude. There are quite a large number of people who may change their way of life and behavior according to the content of the dissemination, or even change their medical treatment behavior. If the content we spread is not reliable or has not been widely certified, it is likely to be harmful to the health of people or could even threaten their lives, which is likely to hurt citizens’ right to be alive and healthy. This is an error that is not allowed for an emerging discipline. Medicine itself is a very rigorous science. Unlike traditional medicine, modern medicine is evidence-based. It requires a large-scale experimental demonstration to prove its effectiveness before it can be gradually promoted. We need to pay attention to this when we plan medical communication. There is a precedent for a treatment that was once considered effective later to be proved ineffective and harmful. We cannot carry out extensive publicity and promotion while the treatment is still in the experimental exploration stage. This is a disrespect for the people and a disrespect for their right to live and to be healthy.
Fourth, through which channel?
The channels of medical communication encompass all the ways to transmit. From the face-to-face communication between medical staff, patients, and their families, to the medical communication activities in the community, and to the use of mass media and new media platforms, medical communication uses various communication channels according to the characteristics of different audiences.
In addition to the traditional medical science popularization pathway advocated by the government, today’s medical communication makes full use of the advantages of network communication and actively explores the “Internet + science” model. Since 2010, medical health official accounts on Weibo and WeChat have increased rapidly. Take Sina Weibo as an example. Many personal microblogs that are certified as medical professionals, such as “Emergency Department