Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Academic Ophthalmology 2021; 13(02): e247-e255
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722310
Research Article

Utilization of Online Resources by Patients in an Ophthalmic Emergency Department

Jodi C. Hwang
1   University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
,
Nicolas A. Yannuzzi
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
,
Kara M. Cavuoto
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
,
Zubair Ansari
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
,
Nimesh A. Patel
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
,
Courtney F. Goodman
1   University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
,
Steven Lang
1   University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
,
Jayanth Sridhar
2   Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To describe the utilization of online resources by patients prior to presentation to an ophthalmic emergency department (ED) and to assess the accuracy of online resources for ophthalmic diagnoses.

Methods This is a prospective survey of patients presenting to an ophthalmic ED for initial evaluation of ocular symptoms. Prior to evaluation, patients completed surveys assessing ocular symptoms, Internet usage, and presumed self-diagnoses. Demographics and characteristics of Internet usage were determined. Accuracy of self-diagnoses was compared between Internet users and nonusers. Diagnoses were classified as high or low acuity based on agreement between senior authors.

Results A total of 144 patients completed surveys. Mean (standard deviation) age was 53.2 years (18.0). One-third of patients used the Internet for health-related searches prior to presentation. Internet users were younger compared with nonusers (48.2 years [16.5] vs. 55.5 years [18.3], p = 0.02). There were no differences in sex, ethnicity, or race. Overall, there was a threefold difference in proportion of patients correctly predicting their diagnoses, with Internet users correctly predicting their diagnoses more often than nonusers (41 vs. 13%, p < 0.001). When excluding cases of known trauma, the difference in proportion increased to fivefold (Internet users 40% vs. nonusers 8%, p < 0.001). Upon classification by acuity level, Internet users demonstrated greater accuracy than nonusers for both high- (42 vs. 17%, p = 0.03) and low (41 vs. 10%, p = 0.001)-acuity diagnoses. Greatest accuracy was in cases of external lid conditions such as chalazia and hordeola (100% [4/4] of Internet users vs. 40% (2/5) of nonusers), conjunctivitis (43% [3/7] of Internet users vs. 25% [2/8] of nonusers), and retinal traction or detachments (57% [4/7] of Internet users vs. 0% [0/4] of nonusers). The most frequently visited Web sites were Google (82%) and WebMD (40%). Patient accuracy did not change according to the number of Web sites visited, but patients who visited the Mayo Clinic Web site had greater accuracy compared with those who visited other Web sites (89 vs. 30%, p = 0.003).

Conclusion Patients with ocular symptoms may seek medical information on the Internet before evaluation by a physician in an ophthalmic ED. Online resources may improve the accuracy of patient self-diagnosis for low- and high-acuity diagnoses.

Keywords

emergency department - Web site - Internet - patient education - self-diagnosis


Publication History

Received: 10 June 2020

Accepted: 19 November 2020

Article published online:
11 December 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Amante DJ, Hogan TP, Pagoto SL, English TM, Lapane KL. Access to care and use of the Internet to search for health information: results from the US National Health Interview Survey. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (04) e106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kloosterboer A, Yannuzzi NA, Patel NA, Kuriyan AE, Sridhar J. Assessment of the quality, content, and readability of freely available online information for patients regarding diabetic retinopathy. JAMA Ophthalmol 2019; 137 (11) 1240-1245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lau D, Ogbogu U, Taylor B, Stafinski T, Menon D, Caulfield T. Stem cell clinics online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell 2008; 3 (06) 591-594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Leffler CT, Davenport B, Chan D. Frequency and seasonal variation of ophthalmology-related Internet searches. Can J Ophthalmol 2010; 45 (03) 274-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Deiner MS, McLeod SD, Wong J, Chodosh J, Lietman TM, Porco TC. Google searches and detection of conjunctivitis epidemics worldwide. Ophthalmology 2019; 126 (09) 1219-1229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kahana A, Gottlieb JL. Ophthalmology on the Internet: what do our patients find?. Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122 (03) 380-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Williams AM, Muir KW, Rosdahl JA. Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol 2016; 16: 133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Shen C, Nguyen M, Gregor A, Isaza G, Beattie A. Accuracy of a popular online symptom checker for ophthalmic diagnoses. JAMA Ophthalmol 2019; 137 (06) 690-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wimble M. Understanding health and health-related behavior of users of internet health information. Telemed J E Health 2016; 22 (10) 809-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar