The Content of US Plastic Surgery Private Practices' Websites

Internet and social media preferences of orthopaedic patients vary according to factors such as age and education levels

BACKGROUND

Patients can often access the internet and social media for health information but it is not clear how much they trust and use the information retrieved.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the social media and internet use rates and preferences of orthopaedic patients, to reveal to what extent they self-treat, and to probe the affecting factors.

METHODS

Two thousand fifty-eight patients admitted to an orthopaedic polyclinic were asked to fill out a survey (voluntarily) consisting of 15 items, to collect demographic data, preference for platforms and sources used, trusted sources, and the extent to which information obtained was used for self-care.

RESULTS

The most preferred and most trusted sources of information were Google and other search engines, and physicians' personal websites (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Variables such as age, gender, educational level and occupation affect the research preferences. Reliance on social media decreases with increasing educational levels (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Health information and knowledge services should work with health professionals to improve aspects of health literacy among orthopaedic patients.

Assessing the Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Dry Eye Disease

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the quality, reliability, readability, and technical quality of web sites relating to dry eye disease.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted that evaluated the first 75 web sites on a Google Search by using the keyword "dry eyes." Each web site was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers using the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria to assess quality and reliability. Interrater reliability was also analyzed. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid readability tests and the Gunning fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Coleman-Liau, and automated readability indices. Technical quality was determined by the presence of 10 specific features. Web sites were further categorized into institutional (academic centers, medical associations, and government institutions) and private (private practices) categories.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in scoring observed between the 2 reviewers. The overall mean DISCERN score ± standard error (SE) was 3.2 ± 0.1, the mean HONcode score (±SE) was 9.3 ± 0.3, and the mean JAMA score (±SE) was 1.9 ± 0.1. Institutional web sites had a higher DISCERN score (3.4 ± 0.1 vs. 3.1 ± 0.1; P < 0.05) and HONcode score (10.3 ± 0.5 vs. 8.8 ± 0.4; P < 0.05) than private sites. Technical quality was higher in institutional web sites compared with private web sites ( P < 0.05). Readability was poor among all web sites, with most web sites not achieving below a ninth grade reading level.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality, reliability, and readability scores were low for most web sites. Although institutional web sites achieved higher scores than private web sites, revision is warranted to improve their overall quality of information and readability profile.