This is true for a lot of other cases too. People live with chronic conditions because they either don’t know that it’s an issue and there’s treatment, or they sought treatment and there wasn’t any help at the time, and since then there have been new drugs release
There’s so much new stuff coming out that most doctors don’t know anything about it until someone mentions it or they go look it up on the internet. Some will only refer to their huge out-of-date drug encyclopedia and if it’s not there you’re SOL.
I know a few people with fibromyalgia who didn’t know that’s what they had until they saw a commercial for it. Doctors never mentioned it as a possible diagnosis.
As someone who worked in the medical CE space, oh yea. The doctors who have the most pull are the dinosaurs who have been using the same techniques for decades. Meanwhile the doctors with fresher views and novel techniques based upon new evidence struggle to get a dozen doctors to attend.
Especially for general practitioners. If you’re a specialist with a narrow focus it’s easier not as difficult to stay current but if you’re expected to know enough about everything to refer patients to those specialists, there’s a lot to stay current on, even if you’re motivated to do so.
I’m not saying I like those ads, far from it, but the reality is the medical landscape updates so frequently, and doctors are so overwhelmed already, that sometimes an ad is the only way patients learn about new things. Reality sucks sometimes. Maybe one day the information pipeline to doctors will improve, though you still have to depend on them keeping up with everything.
Then the NIH should get funding to do PSA’s on medical diagnoses and/or potential treatments. Not drug companies pushing their solutions regardless of efficacy or relevance.
I agree on the problem, my issue is the currently installed solution that is only a solution as a secondary consequence.
Does that mean he/she was explaining the mechanism by which it works and it was good? Or was she/he explaining negative side effects they failed to mention or didn’t understand? Something else?
Ah, she was just correcting them on the mechanism of action, so I don’t think it was a good or bad thing. I was paying and leaving, so I couldn’t stay for the whole convo.
Thank you for coming back to this! Yes, that sounds like a great doctor, good to hear she wasn’t having to school them on how it was causing harm or something like that.
This is true for a lot of other cases too. People live with chronic conditions because they either don’t know that it’s an issue and there’s treatment, or they sought treatment and there wasn’t any help at the time, and since then there have been new drugs release
There’s so much new stuff coming out that most doctors don’t know anything about it until someone mentions it or they go look it up on the internet. Some will only refer to their huge out-of-date drug encyclopedia and if it’s not there you’re SOL.
I know a few people with fibromyalgia who didn’t know that’s what they had until they saw a commercial for it. Doctors never mentioned it as a possible diagnosis.
Almost as if doctors need CE training, huh?
And even then there would still be blind spots.
As someone who worked in the medical CE space, oh yea. The doctors who have the most pull are the dinosaurs who have been using the same techniques for decades. Meanwhile the doctors with fresher views and novel techniques based upon new evidence struggle to get a dozen doctors to attend.
Especially for general practitioners. If you’re a specialist with a narrow focus it’s
easiernot as difficult to stay current but if you’re expected to know enough about everything to refer patients to those specialists, there’s a lot to stay current on, even if you’re motivated to do so.I’m not sure the solution is pharmaceutical companies getting to advertise. There has to be a better way lol
I’m not saying I like those ads, far from it, but the reality is the medical landscape updates so frequently, and doctors are so overwhelmed already, that sometimes an ad is the only way patients learn about new things. Reality sucks sometimes. Maybe one day the information pipeline to doctors will improve, though you still have to depend on them keeping up with everything.
Then the NIH should get funding to do PSA’s on medical diagnoses and/or potential treatments. Not drug companies pushing their solutions regardless of efficacy or relevance.
I agree on the problem, my issue is the currently installed solution that is only a solution as a secondary consequence.
No disagreement here.
Most people don’t even Google their medications or illnesses. “Ask your doctor about” is frankly not bad advice much of the time.
I was so happy when I heard my doctor schooling a few pharma reps on how the drug they were pushing actually works.
Unclear… do you mean for the better or worse? Could go either way.
I’m not sure I understand your confusion.
Does that mean he/she was explaining the mechanism by which it works and it was good? Or was she/he explaining negative side effects they failed to mention or didn’t understand? Something else?
Ah, she was just correcting them on the mechanism of action, so I don’t think it was a good or bad thing. I was paying and leaving, so I couldn’t stay for the whole convo.
Thank you for coming back to this! Yes, that sounds like a great doctor, good to hear she wasn’t having to school them on how it was causing harm or something like that.