Medpedia: Using Web 2.0 to Advance Medicine
February 22, 2009
Editor’s Note: The health information sector is showing some zip. Beyond Search asked Constance Ard, the Answer Maven, to comment on the new service, Medpedia.
Medpedia has a stated purpose of “applying a new collaborative model to the sharing, collection and advancement to medical knowledge.”
This new project has the support of gold star partners Harvard, Stanford and University of Michigan Medical Schools as well as UC Berkley’s School of Public Health. This technology platform is open to the public but has special appeal to users in the medical, health services, academic, and research communities.
The project began in 20089 with Charter Members and Advisors offering support for this collaborative model of medical knowledge sharing.
The Privacy Policy provides support for third-party advertisers to collect and use site user information. Using the site does not require registration for readers. Editors and Members must register. An industry disclosure practice has also been adopted by Medpedia that requires editors to “disclose in their public profiles their corporate and academic affiliations and they must disclose if they receive, or expect to receive, any form of compensation for the content they contribute to Medpedia, or any compensation related to medicine, medical information, or products and services related to the body.”
The Terms of Use outlines very clearly that the site does not provide medical advice and the content is not Peer Reviewed. Contributors must register to use the site. Contributors should review the terms carefully.
Medpedia has kept the user audience in mind for this project. They provide plain English pages for your average Jane Q. User and Clinical pages for medical professionals. This flexibility along with other key features such as interdisciplinary contributions allow Medpedia to reach beyond the consumer and/or researcher to meet the needs of both types of user.
Contributions may be made by anyone. Editors are screened and carefully selected but once a member becomes a recognized editor their profile will track their contributions on Medpedia. Medpedia does plan to expand to languages other than English. Contributors have very specific levels of access for content creation and editing on the site. The FAQ’s lay out the types and responsibilities associated with the various levels.
Using the site is easy. The index of current articles has a list of terms that can be linked to access full encyclopedia articles. The ruling organizational scheme is alphanumeric.
For the layperson, reviewing the search results for a search of the articles on “infectious diseases” at first glance does not hold much hope. However, as you review the results the articles are most definitely indexed appropriately. If you are a keyword user, don’t expect highlighted search terms in the results list. The one line search blurb is literally the first line of the article no matter the format of the full-text.
The seed content does have highly reliable information that can be used by any level researcher for accurate content. Medpedia warns that as the general public contributes to the site this content will require verification. This need for verification is why the Editor and Committee structure will be so important for the development of this collaborative model. The editors will provide the touchstone for accuracy and currency as site content grows.
Finding articles by the contributing organization or by community is easy. Community within the Medpedia environment refers to a particular group of articles, editors and contributors on a specific topic i.e. Adult ADD/ADHD. There is alphanumeric index of the communities and an alpha index of professionals who have provided a profile that provides education and experience.
The collaborative nature of this model is encouraging. The site seems to be well governed to insure that quality, reliable and verifiable information is accessible. The search feature seems effective but the results display has room for improvement, at least from a layperson viewpoint. In my opinion, in the days of keyword searching the blurb in the result needs to be more reflective of the content than the first line of text from the article.
As this site grows it will be important to investigate the effectiveness of the editorial process to ensure that the collaborative model does not fail due to an overwhelming influx of inaccurate out-dated information. As it stands, the seed content makes this a useful and reliable source for medical information. The indexes and structure applied to the content is good and the search tool seems accurate despite the disappointing results display. If you are seeking reliable medical content Medpedia is a good place to start whether you are a professional or Jane Q. User.
Constance Ard, Answer Maven, February 22, 2009
Comments
One Response to “Medpedia: Using Web 2.0 to Advance Medicine”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
[…] Medpepia: Using Web 2.0 to Advance Medicine (arnoldit.com) […]