Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35(04): 387-392
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1693033
Original Research
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

All I Have Learned, I Have Learned from Google: Why Today's Facial Rejuvenation Patients are Prone to Misinformation, and the Steps We can take to Contend with Unreliable Information

Neil Mehta
1   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
,
Amar Gupta
2   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York
,
Michael Nissan
3   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 August 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

A growing number of patients are seeking answers for their health concerns online. This study assesses the reliability, quality, and readability of online materials patients have access to through the Internet and evaluates the social media presence of information providers. An online search was conducted for facial rejuvenation by utilizing three ubiquitously used web search engines: Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The first 25 result pages were collected from each search engine, and exclusionary criteria were applied to exclude online stores and advertisements. Website reliability and quality were assessed via the DISCERN method. Readability was measured through six measurements: Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox score, SMOG index, Coleman Liau index, and automated readability index. Social media presence and profile followers on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram were determined to gauge social media presence. Exclusionary criteria yielded 41 unique websites, with the majority of websites authored by physicians (54%) followed by professional organizations (19%). The DISCERN method demonstrated that journal websites yielded the highest overall quality (4.00) and physician websites yielded the lowest (2.72). Readability analysis demonstrated that online forums proved the most challenging to read, and encyclopedia articles were the least challenging. Physician websites maintained the highest social media presence (95%) followed by professional organizations (75%). However, professional organizations had more social media followers in comparison to physician websites. Physician websites and professional organizations overwhelmingly command social media presence compared to other information providers and provide information with serious deficits in reliability and quality. A strong majority of online information also surpasses the health care literacy of patients. This poses a serious concern for physicians who need to provide and guide patients to high quality and reliable information.

Keywords

facial rejuvenation - DISCERN - patient education - online health - information
 

  • References

  • 1 Statista. Countries with the highest number of internet users as of June 2017. Statista Web site. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/262966/number-of-internet-users-in-selected-countries/ . Accessed October, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Thom File. Computer and Internet Access in the United States. Suitland, MD: United States Census Bureau; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Pass JH, Patel AH, Stuart S, Barnacle AM, Patel PA. Quality and readability of online patient information regarding sclerotherapy for venous malformations. Pediatr Radiol 2018; 48 (05) 708-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gualtieri LN. The doctor as the second opinion and the Internet as the first. In: CHI 2009 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Boston, MA: ACM; 2009: 2489-2498
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Ahmad F, Hudak PL, Bercovitz K, Hollenberg E, Levinson W. Are physicians ready for patients with Internet-based health information?. J Med Internet Res 2006; 8 (03) e22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fox S, Duggan M. Information Triage. For one-third of US adults, the internet is a diagnostic tool. pewinternet.org Web site. Available at: https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/information-triage/ . Accessed October, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stevenson FA, Kerr C, Murray E, Nazareth I. Information from the Internet and the doctor-patient relationship: the patient perspective--a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 2007; 8 (01) 47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tonsaker T, Bartlett G, Trpkov C. Health information on the Internet: gold mine or minefield?. Can Fam Physician 2014; 60 (05) 407-408
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zucker BE, Kontovounisios C. It is time to improve the quality of medical information distributed to students across social media. Adv Med Educ Pract 2018; 9: 203-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Aaron Smith MA. Social media use in 2018: a majority of Americans use Facebook and YouTube, but young adults are especially heavy users of Snapchat and Instagram. Available at: https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/ . Accessed October, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lighthall JG. Rejuvenation of the upper face and brow: neuromodulators and fillers. Facial Plast Surg 2018; 34 (02) 119-127
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jiang Y. , et al. Assessment of efficacy and safety of a fractionated bipolar radiofrequency device for the treatment of lower face wrinkles and laxity. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2018; 20 (04) 205-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Groen JW, Krastev TK, Hommes J, Wilschut JA, Ritt MJPF, van der Hulst RRJW. Autologous fat transfer for facial rejuvenation: a systematic review on technique, efficacy, and satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (12) e1606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 The DISCERN Organization. The DISCERN Instrument. 1997 . Available at: http://www.discern.org.uk/discern_instrument.php . Accessed Feburary 1, 2018.
    PubMed
  • 15 Yeung TM, D'Souza ND. Quality analysis of patient information on surgical treatment of haemorrhoids on the internet. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2013; 95 (05) 341-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Aaronson NL. , et al. Quality, readability, and trends for websites on ankyloglossia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2018; 127 (07) 439-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bompastore NJ, Cisu T, Holoch P. Separating the wheat from the chaff: an evaluation of readability, quality, and accuracy of online health information for treatment of peyronie disease. Urology 2018; 118: 59-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Web FX. Readability Test Tool. 2019 . Available at: https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/ . Accessed October, 2018
    PubMed
  • 19 Sanghvi S, Cherla DV, Shukla PA, Eloy JA. Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to facial fractures. Laryngoscope 2012; 122 (09) 1943-1948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Baredes S, Eloy JA. Readability assessment of patient education materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 147 (03) 466-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Misra P, Agarwal N, Kasabwala K, Hansberry DR, Setzen M, Eloy JA. Readability analysis of healthcare-oriented education resources from the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (01) 90-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar