The quality and reliability of the Internet as a source of information for hypodontia patients

Abstract

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to determine the quality, reliability and usability of information on the Internet regarding hypodontia.

Method:

A survey of patients with hypodontia revealed seven key search terms favoured by patients: Hypodontia; Congenitally missing teeth; Missing teeth; Gaps in teeth; Cure of missing teeth; Information on missing teeth; and Treatment of missing teeth. These were entered into four search engines: Google; Ask; Wikipedia; and NHS Choices. Relevant websites were assessed for their overall demographics, author type, country of origin and rank within the search engine. They were then analysed using five validated assessment tools. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed, and statistical analysis of the data was undertaken.

Results:

Good intra-examiner reliability was observed. A total of 48 websites were included for analysis from an initial 1718. There was no relationship between the ranking of a website on a search engine and the quality of information it contained. When medical search terminology was used, it resulted in websites of better quality than layperson search terms. Most websites were produced by general dental or specialist dental practices but the quality of these was poorer than those developed by private companies and medical organisations. The country of origin was primarily the USA and UK; however, this had no relationship to website quality. Overall, the majority of websites scored poorly for the validated tools and none scored well across multiple tools. A statistical analysis showed a positive relationship between the LIDA and DISCERN instruments but no other correlation between other validated tools was found.

Conclusion:

The quality and reliability of information on the Internet regarding hypodontia is generally poor. There is a need for a reliable online hypodontia resource that can be recommended for patient use.

Keywords

aetiology of malocclusion and growth hypodontia Internet quality of information

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldairy

Laverick

McIntyre

(2012) Orthognathic surgery: Is patient information on the Internet valid? European Journal of Orthodontics 34: 466–469.

Antonarakis

Kiliaridis

(2009) Internet-derived information on cleft lip and palate for families with affected children. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 46: 75–80.

Badarudeen

Sabharwal

(2010) Assessing readability of patient education materials: Current role in orthopaedics. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 468(10): 2572–2580.

Barber

Pavitt

Meads

Khambay

Bekker

(2018) Assessment of information resources for people with hypodontia. BDJ Open 4: 18001.

Best

Muzaffar

Mitchell-Innes

(2015) Quality of information available via the internet for patients with head and neck cancer: Are we improving? European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 272: 3499–3505.

Bharmal

Johal

(2018) Development and assessment of reliable patient-based hypodontia website. Patient Preference and Adherence 12: 1065–1070.

Boyer

Selby

Appel

(1998) The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health web sites. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 52: 1163–1166.

Charnock

Shepperd

Needham

Gann

(1999) DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 53: 105–111.

Chestnutt

Reynolds

(2006) Perceptions of how the Internet has impacted on dentistry. British Dental Journal 200: 161–165.

10.

Daraz

Morrow

Ponce

, et al. (2018) Readability of online health information: A meta-narrative systematic review. American Journal of Medical Quality 33: 487–492.

11.

De Felippe

Kar

(2015) Readability of information related to the parenting of a child with a cleft. Interactive Journal of Medical Research 4: 14.

12.

Eysenbach

(2003) The impact of the Internet on cancer outcomes. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 53: 356–371.

13.

Flesch

(1948) A new readability yardstick. The Journal of Applied Psychology 32: 221–233.

14.

Flesch

(1979) How to Write Plain English. Canterbury: University of Canterbury Press. Archived from the original text 1979.

15.

General Dental Council (2012) Principles of ethical advertising. Available at: https://www.gdc-uk.org/docs/default-source/files-for-egdc/guidance-on-advertising-(sept-2013)-(1)181fb34718934c7780a93ca278a61b11.pdf?sfvrsn=e3f10790_5 (accessed January 2021).

16.

Johal

Cheung

Marcenes

(2007) The impact of two different malocclusion traits on quality of life. British Dental Journal 202: E6.

17.

Johal

Huang

Toledano

(2022) Hypodontia and its impact on a young person’s quality of life, esthetics, and self-esteem. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 161: 220–227.

18.

Kaicker

Dang

Mondal

(2013) Assessing the quality and reliability of health information on ERCP using the DISCERN instrument. Health Care: Current Reviews 1: 104.

19.

Khalaf

Miskelly

Voge

Macfarlane

(2014) Prevalence of hypodontia and associated factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Orthodontics 41: 299–316.

20.

Kukadia

(2014) A prospective study to assess the quality and reliability of the Internet as a source of information for hypodontia patients. Master of Clinical Dentistry in Orthodontics Dissertation, Queen Mary University, London.

21.

Leira-Feijoo

Ledesma-Ludi

Seoane-Romero

Blanco-Carrion

Seoane

Varela-Centelles

(2015) Available web-based dental implants information for patients. How good is it? Clinical Oral Implants Research 26: 1276–1280.

22.

Leung

J-Y

Ni Riordain

Porter

(2020) Readability and quality of online information regarding dental treatment for patients with ischaemic heart disease. British Dental Journal 228: 609–614.

23.

Livas

Delli

Ren

(2013) Quality evaluation of the available Internet information regarding pain during orthodontic treatment. The Angle Orthodontist 83: 500–506.

24.

McMorrow

Millett

(2016) Adult orthodontics: A quality assessment of Internet information. Journal of Orthodontics 43: 186–192.

25.

Madahar

Qureshi

Johal

(2017) Orthodontic treatment modalities: A qualitative assessment of Internet information. Journal of Orthodontics 44: 82–89.

26.

Minervation (2007) The LIDA Instrument. Available at: http://www.minervation.com/does-lida-work/#more-964 (accessed January 2021)

27.

Ni Riordain

McCreary

(2009) Head and neck cancer information on the internet: Type, accuracy and content. Oral Oncology 45: 675–677.

28.

Office for National Statistics (2020) Internet access - households and individuals. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/datasets/internetaccesshouseholdsandindividualsreferencetables (accessed January 2021).

29.

Parekh

Gill

(2014) The quality of orthodontic practice websites. British Dental Journal 216: E21.

30.

Patel

Cobourne

(2015) The design and content of orthodontic practise websites in the UK is suboptimal and does not correlate with search ranking. European Journal of Orthodontics 37: 447–452.

31.

Patel

Cobourne

(2011) Orthodontic extractions and the Internet: Quality of online information available to the public. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 139: E103–E109.

32.

Silberg

Lundberg

Musacchio

(1997) Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveat lector at viewer-let the reader and viewer beware. Journal of the American Medical Association 277: 1244–1245.

33.

Ward

Leach

(2012) Evaluation of internet derived patient information. Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England 94: 300–301.