A recent Pew Research Center survey finds that 35 percent of U.S. adults have used the internet to diagnose a medical problem either for themselves or an acquaintance.

Eighty two percent of Americans consulted search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo for diagnostic information while an additional 13 percent used medical sites such as WebMD. But while internet self-diagnoses are a reality and convenience of the 21st century, researchers warned that they are still not an acceptable replacement for doctor visits — especially since their study shows that few self-diagnoses are confirmed by medical professionals:

Out of the people who said they went online to help find out what they or someone else was suffering from, 46 percent said what they found online led them to believe they needed help from a medical professional. Another 38 percent said they thought they could treat it at home, and 11 percent say it was in between.

However, less than half — 41 percent — said that a doctor confirmed the diagnosis they made from online research. Thirty-five percent said they did not seek a professional opinion, and 18 percent said the medical professional or clinician did not agree with what they thought or had a different opinion about their condition. [...]

“It is important to note what these findings mean — and what they don’t mean,” the authors noted. “Historically, people have always tried to answer their health questions at home and made personal choices about whether and when to consult a clinician. Many have now added the internet to their personal health toolbox, helping themselves and their loved ones better understand what might be ailing them. This study was not designed to determine whether the internet has had a good or bad influence on health care. It measures the scope, but not the outcome, of this activity.”

As with most things in the digital age, medical information that can be easily researched online can serve as an effective primary tool for Americans. But as the saying goes, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and consumers who rely solely on internet-aided self-diagnoses — either due to rising health care costs or simple convenience — do so at the risk of their own health.

ThinkProgress has previously reported on Americans’ increasing use of online “crowd funding” and internet coupon services such as Groupon for cheaper health care services in the face of skyrocketing costs and premiums.

In public health efforts to encourage Americans to quit smoking, graphic anti-smoking visuals could be more effective than written warnings about tobacco, particularly in reaching diverse groups of smokers. A new study suggests that FDA-approved images depicting the consequences of smoking — such as blackened lungs, cancers, and even death — had a more powerful impact on adult smokers than simply receiving written warnings cautioning against the habit.

Researchers from the Legacy Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health delivered anti-smoking materials to over 3,000 adult smokers, and the participants who received graphic images reported feeling more “upset, scared and motivated to quit” than those who received anti-tobacco material only in writing. Those results remained constant across racial and socioeconomic groups — a significant finding, researchers said, since low-income and non-white Americans tend to be much more likely to smoke than the general population.

“Interventions that have a positive impact on reducing smoking among the general population have often proven ineffective in reaching disadvantaged groups, worsening tobacco-related health disparities,” Jennifer Cantrell, the Assistant Director for Research and Evaluation at the Legacy Foundation, said in a statement. “It’s critical to examine the impact of tobacco policies such as warning labels across demographic groups.”

Cantrell pointed out that the graphical labels seemed to be “one of the few tobacco control policies that have the potential to reduce communication inequalities across groups.”

Although teen smoking rates dropped to record lows at the end of last year, about 20 percent of the general U.S. population still smokes. But those rates rise significantly for low-income Americans, people of color, and the LGBT community.

Tobacco-related diseases remain the leading cause of death in the United States, claiming more than 400,000 lives each year. Nonetheless, austerity policies have led states to slash funding for their effective anti-smoking programs over the past decade.

On the heels of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s (R) announcement on Monday that she will expand Medicaid under Obamacare, North Dakota’s governor represents fourth Republican leader to support the optional expansion of the program. The Huffington Post reports that Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) has submitted a bill to his state legislature asking to broaden the state’s eligibility level to allow additional low-income people to qualify for Medicaid coverage.

Dalrymple told reporters that he supports this provision of the health reform law because the federal government will cover the full cost of state’s Medicaid expansion for the first several years. “In the end, it comes down to are you going to allow your people to have additional Medicaid money that comes at no cost to us, or aren’t you?” he said. “We’re thinking, yes, we should.”

Despite the financial benefits for states that choose to expand Medicaid, Dalrymple’s fellow GOP governors haven’t been so eager to cooperate with Obamacare — even at the expense of their states’ low-income residents. Aside from Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada, no other Republican-controlled states have moved toward Medicaid expansion.