{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031166301436571706, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007791575359142927, 'mean_word_length': 5.168168168168168, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Informing Clients through Information Communication Technology in Health Care Systems

Introduction Information Technology, particularly, the Information Communication Technology (ICT), has revolutionized the world communication order. People can be informed in more effective, efficient and convenient ways. Access to media has percolated to the grassroots. Even in developing countries like India, people, who are little above the poverty-line, use mobile phones. Television and radio sets are common even in the households in slum areas. News, entertainment, educational and awareness generation programmes are within their reach and affordability. In spite of all such remarkable developments, whether ICT facilitates Science communication is a billion dollar question. Though information is freely and widely available by virtue of ICT, yet, there are areas where Science communication through ICT still needs to be developed to deliver critical information to the needy. The survey conducted by Vishwa Mohan (1995) revealed that some of the sample mentioned that they are very much frightened and confused by the T.V. announcements on AIDs. It shows that information communicated through mass media sometimes gives rise to confusion and phobia. However, lack of medical knowledge and proliferation of health information make patients misinformed. It neither ensures the patient safety nor improves patient peace of mind. Nowadays, the information age encounters with new diseases and new patients such as "Information Syndrome" (Gavgani & Mohan, 2008) and "Cyberchondriac, a person who imagines they have a particular disease because their symptoms match those listed on an Internet health site" (Cybercondriac, 2007). Roli Srivastava (2008) writes that search engines on the Internet are making I T-driven, new age patients not only better informed and inquisitive about their medical condition but many times even belligerent. "Most doctors agree that equations with tech-savvy patients have changed... There is a rift between the patient community and doctors. While it is a good sign that patients are well informed but most of the time it is ending in confrontation with the doctors," says Dr M Veera Prasad of Care Hospital (quoted by Srivastava, 2008). Describing them as 'e-patients', Dr P Vinay Kumar, surgical gastroenterologist with Apollo Hospitals, says (quoted by Srivastava, 2008) this fairly young section of patients often steps into clinics with a "preconceived idea about their diagnosis and treatment options." Most of the times, the e-patient becomes very confident of what he has learnt on the net and questions the doctor accordingly. "One of my colleagues ended up telling a patient's attendants, you seemed to have learnt or want to learn in half-an-hour what we took ten years to do," Dr Vinay Kumar recollects. In the present days, patients prefer to have information about their health and participate in decision making regarding their health problems. Basically, patients trust in their doctor to get information about their health condition and problems. At the same time they also consult many other sources of information such as Nurses, Internet, friends, and others who have suffered earlier from similar disease or health problem. Amidst so many sources which are more effective and preferred ones in the view of the patients and care givers? If this is found out, delivery of critical health information can be made as per the preferences of the information seekers. As a matter of fact, patients usually trust in their doctor as the right and first preferred source of information. But, doctors usually give oral information to their patients. In this connection, literature shows that mouth-to-ear information communication [i.e. the oral information] is not sufficient. Kemper and Metler (2002) state that "the way doctors and patients exchange information generally mouth-to-ear--is often inefficient, incomplete, and outmoded". In addition, Schnider (2002) states that "patients forget more than three-fourths of information after leaving the doctors room". …