Neuroethics

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 197–209 | Cite as

Treatments and Services for Neurodevelopmental Disorders on Advocacy Websites: Information or Evaluation?

Original Paper

Abstract

The Internet has quickly gained popularity as a major source of health-related information, but its impact is unclear. Here, we investigate the extent to which advocacy websites for three neurodevelopmental disorders—cerebral palsy (CP), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD)—inform stakeholders about treatment options, and discuss the ethical challenges inherent in providing such information online. We identified major advocacy websites for each disorder and assessed website accountability, the number, attributes, and accessibility of treatments described, and the valence of treatment information. With the exception of FASD websites, we found that advocacy websites provide a plethora of information about a wide variety of readily available products and services. Treatment information is primarily targeted at families and is overwhelmingly encouraging, regardless of the type or conventionality of treatments. Many websites acknowledge corporate sponsors. While the majority do not overtly advertise or endorse specific brands, they also do not prominently display disclaimers about the nature and intent of treatment information. Thus, while advocacy websites are organized to serve as information clearinghouses, they implicitly appear to provide endorsement of selected treatments and services. We conclude with recommendations for new partnerships between government-funded health organizations, advocacy and investigators to make more transparent the role of online information in informing treatment options and improving the evaluation of information.

Keywords

Autism Cerebral Palsy Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder Treatments Internet Advocacy Neuroethics 

References

  1. 1.
    Sonnenberg, F.A. 1997. Health information on the internet: Opportunities and pitfalls. Archives of Internal Medicine 157(2): 151–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neuhauser, L., and G.K. Kreps. 2003. Rethinking communication in the E-health era. Journal of Health Psychology 8: 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Impicciatore, P., C. Pandolfini, N. Casella, and M. Bonati. 1997. Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: A systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ 314: 1875–1879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mandl, K.D., S. Feit, B.M.G. Pena, and I.S. Kohane. 2000. Growth and determinants of access in patient e-mail and internet use. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 154: 508–511.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    White, M., and S.M. Dorman. 2001. Receiving social support online: Implications for health education. Health Education Research 16(6): 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tuffrey, C., and S. Finlay. 2002. Use of the internet by parents of pediatric outpatients. Archives of Disease in Childhood 87: 534–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larsson, M. 2009. A descriptive study of the use of the Internet by women seeking pregnancy-related information. Midwifery 25: 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldman, R.D., and A. Macpherson. 2006. Internet health information use and e-mail access by parents attending a paediatric emergency department. Emergency Medicine Journal 23: 345–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wainstein, B.K., K. Sterling-Levis, S.A. Baker, J. Taitz, and M. Brydon. 2006. Use of the Internet by parents of paediatric patients. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 42(9): 528–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th ed, text revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric AssociationGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ortega, F. 2009. The cerebral subject and the challenge of neurodiversity. BioSocieties 4: 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seligman, M., and R.B. Darling. 2007. Ordinary families, special children: A systems approach to childhood disability, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Connor, M.J., and B. Paley. 2009. Psychiatric conditions associated with prenatal alcohol exposure. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 15(3): 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murphy-Brennan, M.G., and T.P. Oei. 1999. Is there evidence to show that fetal alcohol syndrome can be prevented? Journal of Drug Education 29(1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2010. Medical profiling and online medicine: The ethics of ‘personalised healthcare’ in a consumer age. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hardey, M. 2001. ‘E-health’: The internet and the transformation of patients into consumers and producers of health knowledge. Information, Communication & Society 4(3): 388–405.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sacchetti, P., P. Zvara, and M.K. Plante. 1999. The Internet and patient education—resources and reliability: Focus on a selected urologic topic. Urology 53: 1117–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ayonrinde, O. 1998. Patients in cyberspace: Information or confusion? Postgraduate Medical Journal 74: 449–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Astin, J.A. 1998. Why patients use alternative medicine: Results of a national study. JAMA 279(19): 2548–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freeman, A.D., and J.M. Freeman. 1989. No-fault cerebral palsy insurance: An alternative to the obstetrical malpractice lottery. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 14: 707–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silberg, W.M., G.D. Lundberg, and R.A. Musacchio. 1997. Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet. JAMA 277: 1244–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Accessed 25 September 2010, from http://nccam.nih.gov/.
  24. 24.
    Hanson, E., L.A. Kalish, E. Bunce, C. Curtis, S. McDaniel, J. Ware, and J. Petry. 2007. Use of complementary and alternative medicine among children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 37(4): 628–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adams, S.A., A.A. de Bont, and M. Berg. 2006. Looking for answers, constructing reliability: An exploration into how Dutch patients “Check” web-based health information. International Journal of Medical Informatics 75(1): 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mager, A. 2009. Mediated health. Socio-technical practices of providing and using online health information. New Media and Society 11(7): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Caruso, D. 2010. Autism in the US: Social movement and legal change. American Journal of Law & Medicine 36: 1–86.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Offit, P. 2008. Autism’s false prophets: Bad science, risky medicine, and the search for a cure. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaimal, A.J., Y.W. Cheng, A.S. Bryant, M.E. Norton, B.L. Shaffer, and A.B. Caughey. 2008. Google obstetrics: who is educating our patients? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 198(6): 682.e1–682.e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neff, J. 1999. Internet could see more Web site sponsorships. Advertising Age 70(11): s6–s7.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McKinley, J., H. Cattermole, and C.W. Oliver. 1999. The quality of surgical information on the Internet. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 44: 265–268.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Evans, M., A. Shaw, E.A. Thompson, S. Falk, P. Turton, T. Thompson, and D. Sharp. 2007. Decisions to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by male cancer patients: Information-seeking roles and types of evidence used. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 7: 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fox, S. 2006. Pew internet and American life project: Online health search 2006. Accessed: October 2010, http://www.pewinternet.org.
  34. 34.
    Jacoby, J., D.E. Speller, and C. Kohn Berning. 1974. Brand choice as a function of information load: replication and extension. Journal of Marketing Research 1(1): 33–42.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scammon, D.L. 1975. “Information load” and consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 4(3): 148–155.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Green, V.A. 2007. Parental experience with treatments for autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 19: 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Akins, R.S., K. Angkustsiri, and R.L. Hansen. 2010. Complementary and alternative medicine in autism: an evidence-based approach to negotiating safe and efficacious interventions with families. Neurotherapeutics 7(3): 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Funded Research Database. Accessed 25 October 2010, from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/826.html.
  39. 39.
    May, P.A., and J.P. Gossage. 2001. Estimating the prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome: A summary. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Alcohol Research & Health 25: 159–167.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Toutain, S., and C. Lejeune. 2008. Family management of infants with fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 20: 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cline, R.J.W., and K.M. Haynes. 2001. Consumer health information seeking on the internet: The state of the art. Health Education Research 16(6): 671–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fox, S. and L. Rainie. 2000. Pew internet and american life project: The online health care revolution: How the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Accessed: October 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org.
  43. 43.
    Barwick, M., K. Boydell, E. Stasiulis, H. Ferguson, K. Blasé, and D. Fixsen. 2005. Knowledge transfer and evidence based practice in children’s mental health. Toronto: Children’s Mental Health Ontario.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Symes, D.M., B. Remington, T. Brown, and P.R. Hastings. 2006. Early intensive behavioral intervention for children with autism: Therapists’ perspectives on achieving procedural fidelity. Research in Developmental Disabilities 27: 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vismara, A.L., and S.J. Rogers. 2010. Behavioral treatments in autism spectrum disorder: What do we know? Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 6: 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eikeseth, S., T. Smith, E. Jahr, and S. Eldevik. 2002. Intensive behavioral treatment at school for 4- to 7-year-old children with autism: A 1-year comparison controlled study. Behavior Modification 26: 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jacobson, J. 2000. Early intensive behavioral intervention: Emergence of a consumer-driven service model. The Behavior Analyst 23: 149–171.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    National Research Council. 2001. Educating children with autism. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina C. Di Pietro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Louise Whiteley
    • 1
  • Judy Illes
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.National Core for Neuroethics, Division of Neurology, Department of MedicineThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Neurodevelopment Network Inc., Child and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.National Core for NeuroethicsUBC Hospital, Koerner PavilionVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations