Dear Thomas,
Thanks for your message. [ https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/introduction-andre-neto-brazil-developi... ]
I would like to expand on two of your comments. You write:
=
Neil Pakenham-Walsh writes: "I argue that the central challenge is not to combat misinformation, but to accelerate progress towards universal access to reliable healthcare information." I suggest that this a contrast between the old and the young. In days of old, information was much more scarce. I think we easily for get how much easier it is to get free information today as compared to say 30 ago. As there is progress on free information, its reliability becomes more of a problem."
=
When we talk about "universal access to reliable healthcare information" on HIFA, we define this in relation to the HIFA vision: everyone has access to the information they need to protect their own health and the health of others. This implies that the information is not only reliable, but is in the right language and format to be practical. Reliability is certainly a problem, so too is finding reliable information that is relevant to the specific context of the user, and which the user can differentiate reliable information from misinformation. Our Lancet 2004 paper (Can we achieve health information for all by 2015?) argued that this is due to a dysfunctional global evidence ecosystem, and our latest HIFA consultation overwhelmingly calls for WHO to champion universal access to reliable healthcare information and convene stakeholders to develop a global strategy.
You also write:
=
"global health leaders wrote in The Lancet: "The challenge is to ensure that everyone in the world can have access to clean, clear, knowledge — a basic human right,"
IMHO these global health leaders are wrong. "knowledge" is what is in people's head. The proper term should be "information"."
=
Yes, there are many definitions of knowledge (and information), and I think the commonest prevailing view is as you say: knowledge is what is in people's heads. An editor might have picked up on this back in 2006 and suggested use of the term 'information' instead. I think the central point of the statement holds, even though some would argue that 'information' is the more precise term.
Semantics are a constant feature of our discussions on HIFA. Another relevant nuance has been discussed previously on HIFA: when we say "access to reliable healthcare information", this can be considered to include past access, manifest as learning and knowledge. What matters is knowing what to do in any given context, whether this knowing is learned (past access) or new (current access). For this reason, HIFA discussions often explore issues around pre-service training and continuing professional development, as well as sociocultural influences on how people communicate and process healthcare information (and misinformation).
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org
