Who can you trust on online health forums?

The perils of "Münchausen by internet".

For all the benefits that search engines and online support groups have brought to patients – especially in an era of shrinking health budgets and stretched front-line services – the collision of health care and social media has highlighted a number of thorny issues. The internet is notoriously patchy as a source of health advice, for a start, with nervous users often vulnerable to "cyberchondria", the kind of hysteria that can transform an innocent mole into a malignant tumour or a minor rash into a life-threatening bout of meningitis.

Among the more pernicious phenomena that put today's online patients at risk is a pattern of behaviour known as "Münchausen by internet" (MBI), an online variant of Münchausen syndrome. Where old-fashioned, non-digital Münchausen sufferers feign illnesses in hospitals and GP's offices, MBI involves posting faked stories on internet support forums in an attempt to elicit sympathy and support from other users.

MBI, a term coined by the US psychiatrist Marc Feldman but still unrecognised by the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), has gained widespread media attention through a series of high-profile cases, one of the most recent being that of a teenage girl who, it was revealed last November, adopted the fictitious persona of a mother caring for her cancer-stricken daughter, stringing along the Macmillan cancer support forum for more than two years before the deception finally unravelled.

MBI falls into the hazy nether-region between the wider culture of online trolling and a genuine psychiatric condition. Whether a user lying on health forums is motivated by simple malice or deeper psychiatric issues, the fact remains that it's a lot easier to mislead a supportive online community than a doctor and the consequences are more serious. Whereas doctors are equipped to deal with hypochondriacs and fakers, people who post on forums are often patients themselves and considerably more vulnerable to abuses of trust.

What's more, the vast, faceless mass of anonymous online communities makes it incredibly difficult to pick out the fakers from their genuine counterparts. Barring the use of plagiarism software to spot suspicious patterns or bolstering privacy settings, which seems to defeat the purpose of public forums, the best defence is a sharp-eyed community, with specialists also calling for formal recognition of MBI as a pattern of behaviour and a more proactive social media stance from health-care authorities. Unfortunately, the internet seems to be throwing up issues such as MBI faster than anyone is equipped to address them. In the meantime, the best advice for health forum users will remain depressingly basic: tread carefully and carry a big grain of salt.

The article can be read in full here. Chris Lo is a senior technology writer for the NRI Digital network.

Web of deceit: internet users can be vulnerable to "cyberchondria". Photograph: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images

 

Chris Lo is a senior technology writer for the NRI Digital network.

Show Hide image

Will Euroscepticism prove an unbeatable advantage in the Conservative leadership race?

Conservative members who are eager for Brexit are still searching for a heavyweight champion - and they could yet inherit the earth.

Put your money on Liam Fox? The former Defence Secretary has been given a boost by the news that ConservativeHome’s rolling survey of party members preferences for the next Conservative leader. Jeremy Wilson at BusinessInsider and James Millar at the Sunday Post have both tipped Fox for the top job.

Are they right? The expectation among Conservative MPs is that there will be several candidates from the Tory right: Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and potentially Owen Paterson could all be candidates, while Boris Johnson, in the words of one: “rides both horses – is he the candidate of the left, of the right, or both?”

MPs will whittle down the field of candidates to a top two, who will then be voted on by the membership.  (As Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, notes in his interview with my colleague George Eaton, Conservative MPs could choose to offer a wider field if they so desired, but would be unlikely to surrender more power to party activists.)

The extreme likelihood is that that contest will be between two candidates: George Osborne and not-George Osborne.  “We know that the Chancellor has a bye to the final,” one minister observes, “But once you’re in the final – well, then it’s anyone’s game.”

Could “not-George Osborne” be Liam Fox? Well, the difficulty, as one MP observes, is we don’t really know what the Conservative leadership election is about:

“We don’t even know what the questions are to which the candidates will attempt to present themselves as the answer. Usually, that question would be: who can win us the election? But now that Labour have Corbyn, that question is taken care of.”

So what’s the question that MPs will be asking? We simply don’t know – and it may be that they come to a very different conclusion to their members, just as in 2001, when Ken Clarke won among MPs – before being defeated in a landslide by Conservative activists.

Much depends not only on the outcome of the European referendum, but also on its conduct. If the contest is particularly bruising, it may be that MPs are looking for a candidate who will “heal and settle”, in the words of one. That would disadvantage Fox, who will likely be a combative presence in the European referendum, and could benefit Boris Johnson, who, as one MP put it, “rides both horses” and will be less intimately linked with the referendum and its outcome than Osborne.

But equally, it could be that Euroscepticism proves to be a less powerful card than we currently expect. Ignoring the not inconsiderable organisational hurdles that have to be cleared to beat Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and potentially any or all of the “next generation” of Sajid Javid, Nicky Morgan or Stephen Crabb, we simply don’t know what the reaction of Conservative members to the In-Out referendum will be.

Firstly, there’s a non-trivial possibility that Leave could still win, despite its difficulties at centre-forward. The incentive to “reward” an Outer will be smaller. But if Britain votes to Remain – and if that vote is seen by Conservative members as the result of “dirty tricks” by the Conservative leadership – it could be that many members, far from sticking around for another three to four years to vote in the election, simply decide to leave. The last time that Cameron went against the dearest instincts of many of his party grassroots, the result was victory for the Prime Minister – and an activist base that, as the result of defections to Ukip and cancelled membership fees, is more socially liberal and more sympathetic to Cameron than it was before. Don’t forget that, for all the worry about “entryism” in the Labour leadership, it was “exitism” – of Labour members who supported David Miliband and liked the New Labour years  - that shifted that party towards Jeremy Corbyn.

It could be that if – as Brady predicts in this week’s New Statesman – the final two is an Inner and an Outer, the Eurosceptic candidate finds that the members who might have backed them are simply no longer around.

It comes back to the biggest known unknown in the race to succeed Cameron: Conservative members. For the first time in British political history, a Prime Minister will be chosen, not by MPs with an electoral mandate of their own or by voters at a general election but by an entirelyself-selecting group: party members. And we simply don't know enough about what they feel - yet. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.