Who are the effective mouthpieces?

Effective communication is the business of getting people who are listened to, to say things.

So, if we are going to change people's perception of say, CAM, we need to find out who they listen to when it comes to medical matters.

Now, the Wellcome Monitor survey I referred to earlier didn't specifically ask who people turn to for medical advice, but they did ask about medical research.  The breakdown of preferred sources of information on medical research looks something like this:

Two things mean that blogging away here would actually be constructive, providing I had a significant audience:

(1) I'm a scientist, a preferred source of information (especially for younger people).
(2) People get 33-81% of their medical information from the internet (depending on their level of education).


Now, I don't have the energy to try and build a significant web audience to communicate medical matters to, so we'll cross that out from the start.  Most people would probably feel the same way.

So, what to do?  Well, getting clinicians with a significant audience to speak out more against CAM (our example in this case) would be one way.  Preferably, clinicians with a significant online following.  Dr Goldacre comes to mind, of course, but his audience is a pretty narrow field.  Furthermore, he's widely (if erroneously) seen as a journalist, and they rate at the bottom of the pile when it comes to public trust. Note: he's doing a fabulous job all the same.


If I was really interested in changing public perceptions of CAM, I'd be writing to every clinician who writes for a newspaper, asking them to be a little more critical and reminding them that they are very influential.  So that's what I'll be doing from now on.  And encouraging others to do the same.


What else could we little folk be doing, do you think?