Social Theory & Health

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 20–41 | Cite as

EMPIRE and health website recommendations: Technologies of control

Original Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

There is limited literature and empirical data that attempts to theorise or elucidate the repercussions that have eventuated from the e-health phenomenon. Therefore, this exploratory study will identify how modern forms of communication technologies (that is, the Internet, World Wide Web) are being used by Transnational Corporations (that is, pharmaceutical companies) in an attempt to globalise economic markets, online health information, services and products. To assist in the theorisation of these research findings, this article draws upon the work of Hardt and Negri to critically examine the influences that motivate health professionals to undertake a health website recommendation, in terms of globalisation, capitalism and information imperialism. Hardt and Negri, in their exploration of the development and rise of a networked digital information highway, more commonly called ‘The Internet’, give particular attention to the concepts of cyberspace and the impacts of a new form of global juridical sovereignty, known as EMPIRE. Attention will be directed towards outlining how the dominant forces of our time (that is, global pharmaceutical companies and the networked digital highway) have influenced online health information access, and subsequently twenty-first century health-care delivery.

Keywords

Empire health websites e-health pharmaceutical companies health professionals globalisation 

References

  1. Akerkar, M. and Bichile, L. (2004) Doctor-patient relationship: Changing dynamics in the information age. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 2 (50): 120–122, http://www.jpgmonline.com/article.asp?issn=0022-3859;year=2004;volume=50;issue=2;spage=120;epage=122;aulast=Akerkar, accessed 4 December 2010.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J., Rainey, R. and Eysenbach, G. (2003) The impact of cyber healthcare on the physician-patient relationship. Journal of Medical Systems 27 (1): 34–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angell, M. (2004) The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. Canadian Medical Association Journal 171 (12): 1041–1594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bader, S.A. and Braude, R.M. (1998) Social change and the Internet/health care. Academic Medicine 73 (57): 408–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banach, M., Frances, P. and Berna, T. (2005) Liability and the Internet: Risks and recommendations for social work practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services 17 (2&3): 153–171.Google Scholar
  6. Bard, M. (2006) e-Marketing. Med AD News. London 25 (8): 60.Google Scholar
  7. Baskakov, E. (1987) Empire of lies and deception. Democratic Journalist 30 (23): 40–100.Google Scholar
  8. Bearman, M. and Bessell, T. (2005) Improving Australian pharmacists’ attitudes to internet use in community pharmacy practice. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 13 (2): 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brodie, M., Flournoy, E. and Altman, D. (2000) Health information, the Internet, and the digital divide. Health Affairs (Millwood) 19: 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cain, J., Brent, I. and Fox, P. (2009) Web 2.0 and pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 73 (7): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Case, S. (2005) The gluten-free diet: How to provide effective education and resources. Gastroenterology 128 (4): 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castaldo, J. (2008) Internet use and the doctor-patient relationship – The good, the bad, and the ugly. Neurology Today 8 (13): 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drennan, J. and McColl-Kennedy, R. (2003) The relationship between Internet use and perceived performance in retail and professional service firms. Journal of Services Marketing 17 (3): 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. eBizMBA Rank. (2010) http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/health-websites, accessed 23 May 2010.
  15. Eysenback, G. and Diepgen, T. (1998) Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: Evaluation, labelling, and filtering of information. British Medical Journal 317: 1496–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eysenback, G. and Jadad, A. (2001) Evidence-based patient choice and consumer health informatics in the internet age. Medical Internet Research 3 (19): 24.Google Scholar
  17. Felkey, B. and Fox, B. (2001) Using the internet to enhance pharmacy-based patient care services. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (Washington) 38 (8): 34–67.Google Scholar
  18. Fillon, P. (2005) The great direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising con. Medical Internet Research 4 (17): 90–457.Google Scholar
  19. Forkner-Dunn, J. (2005) Internet-based patient self-care: The next generation of health care delivery. Journal of Medical Internet Research 5 (2): e8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1996) Power/knowledge. Harvester, Brighton: Cambridge University Press, pp. 130–135.Google Scholar
  21. Fox, S. and Jones, S. (2009) The social life of health information. Pew Internet and American Life Project, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx, accessed 18 May 2010.
  22. Fox, S. and Rainie, L. (2000) The online health care revolution: How the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington DC, http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Health_Report.pdf (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5dL3LW69V), accessed 28 May 2009.
  23. Gerber, B. and Eiser, A. (2001) The patient–physician relationship in the Internet age: Future prospects and the research agenda. Medical Internet Research 13 (15): 90–457.Google Scholar
  24. Guardian Weekly. (2006) The 20 largest pharm companies, accessed 12 March 2006.Google Scholar
  25. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) Empire, Vol. 17. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 50–1500.Google Scholar
  26. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2004) Postmoderisation, or the Information of Production. US: Harvard University Press, p. 50.Google Scholar
  27. Herse, P. and Sayer, G. (2009) Optometry and the Internet. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 79 (4): 152–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horrigan, J. and Rainie, L. (2002) Getting serious online. Washington DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project, http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Getting_Serious_Online3ng.pdf(Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5dL3foIt7) accessed 23 June 2008.
  29. Innes, H. (1991) The Bias of Communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, http://www.geof.net/research/2004/hacker-time, accessed 19 September 2008.Google Scholar
  30. Kage, B. (2005) The Truth about Medical Journals, and How Drug Companies Exert Heavy Influence over Published Scientific Articles, Vol. 8. Harvard University Press, p. 56.Google Scholar
  31. Kassirer, J. (2000a) In on the take, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/, accessed 25 March 2006.
  32. Kassirer, J. (2000b) Patients, physicians, and the Internet. Health Affairs 19 (6): 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kevin, K. (2004) Changes in Relative Wages: Supply and Demand Factors, Vol. 11. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago. Booth School of Bussiness, pp. 23–34.Google Scholar
  34. Kirk, S.F.L., Cade, J.E. and Greenhalgh., A. (2002) Dietitians and the Internet: Are dietitians embracing the new technology? Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 14 (6): 477–484, Nutrition Epidemiology Group, Nuffield Institute for Health, The University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lessig, L. (2000) Architecting for control. Cambridge, Cyber Law Harvard. Keynote given at the Internet Political Economy Forum Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Cambridge, UK. 11 May 2000, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/works/lessig/camkey.pdf, accessed 30 April 2006.
  36. Maged, N., Kamel, B. and Wheeler, S. (2007) The Emerging Web 2.0 Social Software: An Enabling Suite of Sociable Technologies in Health and Health Care Education. Plymouth, UK: Faculty of Health and Social Work and Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
  37. McAFee, A. (2003) e-Business at Norvartis. Harvard Business School, August, 2001.Google Scholar
  38. Minddell, T. (2005) What the American Medical Association hopes you never learn about its true history, http://www.naturalnews.com/Journal_AMA.html, accessed 24 July 2009.Google Scholar
  39. Nahm, E.S. et al (2008) Exploration of patients’ readiness for an eHealth management program for chronic heart failure: A preliminary study. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 23 (6): 463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nielsen's Internet & Technology Report. (2010) http://en-us.nielsen.com/tab/product_families/nielsen_netratings, accessed 20 May 2010.
  41. Pandey, S., John, J. and Tiwary, J. (2003) Women's health and the internet: Understanding emerging trends and implications. Social Science & Medicine 5 (6), Issue 1: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perreault, K. (2008) Linking health promotion with physiotherapy for low back pain. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 40 (6): 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2004) Health searches and email have become more commonplace but there is room for improvement in searches and overall Internet access, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2003/Internet-Health-Resources/1-Summary-of-Findings.aspx, accessed 13 September 2009.
  44. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2009) The social life of health information, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx, accessed 5 November 2008.
  45. Potts, H. (2001) Survey of doctors’ experiences of patients using the Internet. Journal of Medical Internet Research 4 (1): 29.Google Scholar
  46. Quyyam, I. (2003) E-business technologies and trends in the pharmaceutical industry. Massachusetts Institution of Technology. George Washington University, http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16997, accessed 24 December 2009.
  47. Rahman, A. (2006) E-Mental health in Pakistan: A pilot study of training and supervision in child psychiatry using the internet. The Psychiatrist 30: 149–152.Google Scholar
  48. Reeves, H. (2000) Copying in cyberspace: The impact of Internet use on the ability of HIV-positive individuals to deal with their illness. Journal of Health Communication 5: 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shade, L. (2000) Is technology neutral? Space, time and the biases of communication. Ottawa, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa, http://www.cfp2000.org/papers/shade.pdf, accessed 18 April 2008.
  50. Sheppard, L. and Mackintosh, S. (2008) Technology in education: What is appropriate for rural and remote allied health professionals? Australian Journal of Rural Health 6 (4): 189–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soules, M. (1996) Control of knowledge. Journal of Health Services 19: 23–27.Google Scholar
  52. Sweet, M. (2009) Pharmaceutical marketing and the internet. Australian Prescriber 32: 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Uden-Kraan, C. (2009) Health-related Internet use by patients with somatic diseases: Frequency of use and characteristics of users. Informatics for Health & Social Care 34: 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ullrich, P. (2002) Patient education on the Internet: Opportunities and pitfalls. SPINE 27 (7): 185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Usher, W. (2007) Gold Coast general practitioners’ recommendation of health websites to their patients. Medical Journal of Australia 7 (2): 1–2.Google Scholar
  56. Usher, W. (2008) Empire and the Internet prescription. Influences that motivate General Practitioners to recommend a health website to the health consumer. PhD dissertation, Griffith University, Gold Coast campus. Given under Common Seal, 24 August 2008.Google Scholar
  57. Usher, W. (2009) Gold coast general practitioners understanding pertaining to reliability, interactive and usability components associated with health websites. Journal of Behaviour and Information Technology 28 (1): 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Usher, W. and Skinner, J. (2010) Levels of persuasion and types of enticements offered by pharmaceutical companies to Gold Coast general practitioners in an attempt to encourage a health website recommendation. Health and Social Care in the Community 18 (1): 100–105.Google Scholar
  59. Veracity, D. (2005) The great direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising con: How patients and doctors alike are easily influenced to demand dangerous drugs, http://www.naturalnews.com/010315.html, accessed 25 June 2009.
  60. Villanueva, P. (2003) Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisement in medical journals. The Lancet 361: 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wyatt, J. (2000) Commentary: Measuring quality and impact of the World Wide Web. British Medical Journal 314: 1879–1889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Education and Professional Studies, Gold Coast campus, Griffith UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.Head of Department, Department of TourismLeisure, Hotel & Sport Management, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations