There is increasing use of the Internet by patients as an educational tool prior to a surgical procedure. However, the quality of information is highly variable, and it is imperative that as clinicians, we are aware of the information available to ensure that consent is valid and avoid unrealistic expectations. Our aim is to assess the quality of medical information available on the Internet related to common surgical procedures.
Methods
Analysis of the quality of patient information on 10 websites for six common surgical conditions (n = 54 following exclusions) was assessed using the DISCERN questionnaire and, for readability, using the Flesch reading ease test.
Results
There was high variation in the DISCERN score from 1.34 to 4.4 (mean 2.75). Overall, poor quality of patient information is available. Consistent scoring below 55 on Flesch reading ease score suggests a reading level beyond the majority of the patient population.
Conclusion
The majority of patient-centred health education on the Internet is poor. Therefore, improved verbal and written information during consultation combined with local, national and international websites is important to meet patient’s expectations and avoid issues regarding consent.
MulsowJJFeeleyTMTierneyS.Beyond consent – improving understanding in surgical patients. Am J Surg2012;
203: 112–120.
5.
MauffreyCPrempehEMJohnJ, et al.
The influence of written information during the consenting process on patients’ recall of oper-ative risks. A prospective randomised study. Int Orthopaed (Sico)2008;
32: 425–429.
FoxS. The social life of health information. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 12 May 2011.
8.
HigginsOSixsmithJBarryMM, et al. A literature review on health information seeking behaviour on the web: a health consumer and health professional perspective. Technical Report. ECD, 2011.
9.
BrodieMFlournoyRE, et al.
Health information, the Internet, and the digital divide. Health Aff (Millwood)2000;
19: 255–265.
10.
ClineRJWHaynesKM.Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res2001;
16: 671–692.
11.
LimSXueL, et al.
A study on Singaporean women’s acceptance of using mobile phones to seek health information. Int J Med Inform2011;
80: e189–e202.
12.
GrayNJKleinJD, et al.
Health information-seeking behaviour in adolescence: the place of the Internet. Soc Sci Med2005;
60: 1467–1478.
13.
TangHNgJ.Googling for a diagnosis – use of Google as a diagnostic aid: Internet based study. BMJ2006;
333: 1143–1145.
14.
SillenceEBriggsP, et al.
How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information?Soc Sci Med2007;
64: 1853–1862.
15.
RougheadTSewellD, et al.
Internet-based resources frequently provide inaccurate and out-of-date recommendations on preoperative fasting: a systematic review. Anesth Analg2016;
123: 1463–1468.
16.
EysenbachC.How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ2002;
324: 573–577.
17.
TingK, et al.
Evaluating the quality and readability of thyroplasty information on the Internet. J Voice2013;
28: 378–381.
18.
AcarBAcarM, et al.
Accuracy of Internet guidance on pediatric otolaryngology procedures. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol2014;
78: 2190–2192.
19.
WassermanMBaxterN, et al.
Systematic review of Internet patient information on colorectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum2014;
57: 64–69.
20.
ZukGPalmaAF, et al.
Systematic review of quality of patient information on liposuction in the Internet. Plast Reconstr Surg – Global Open2016;
4: e759.
CharnockDShepperdSNeedhamG, et al.
DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health1999;
53: 105–111.
23.
New rules of consent: the patient decides. BMJ2015; 350: h1534.
McGuireLC.Remembering what the doctor said: organization and older adults’ memory for medical information. Exp Aging Res1996;
22: 403–428.
26.
AndersonJLDodmanSKopelmanM, et al.
Patient information recall in a rheumatology clinic. Rheumatol Rehabil1979;
18: 245–255.
27.
LeyP.Memory for medical information. Br J Soc Clin Psychol1979;
18: 245–255.
28.
RobinsonG.Effective doctor-patient communication: building bridges and bridging barriers. Can J Neurol Sci2002;
29: S30–S32.
29.
ThomsonAMCunninghamSJHuntNP.A comparison of information retention at an initial orthodontic consultation. Eur J Orthod2001;
23: 169–178.
30.
McMullanM.Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns2006;
63: 24–28.
31.
BernstamEV.Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use?Int J Med Inform2005;
74: 13–19.
32.
BoyerCBaujardVGeissbuhlerA.Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform2011;
169: 53–57.
33.
SilbergWMLundbergGDMusacchioRA.Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveat lector et viewer-let the reader and viewer beware. J Am Med Assoc1997;
277: 1244–1245.
34.
BarkerS.Accuracy of Internet recommendations for prehospital care of venomous snake bites. Wilderness Environ Med2010;
21: 298–302. Dec
35.
RaoNRMohapatraMMishraS, et al.
Evaluation of dengue-related health information on the Internet. Perspect Health Inf Manag2012;
9: 1.
Lozada HR and Gary HK. Net Neutrality Repeal and its Effect on Consumers. International Journal of Business and Social Science 2019. DOI: 10.30845/ijbss.v10n1p1.
40.
InksterN.The Huawei affair and China’s technology ambitions. Survival2019;
61: 105–111.
