The use of online search engines for health information is becoming common practice. We analyzed Google search queries to identify the most frequently asked topics and questions related to lateral epicondylitis (“tennis elbow”) and the Web sites provided to address these questions.
Methods:
Four search terms for lateral epicondylitis were entered into Google Web Search. A list of the most frequently asked questions along with their associated Web sites was extracted and categorized by 2 independent reviewers.
Results:
A total of 400 questions were extracted with 168 associated Web sites. The most popular question topics were related to indications/management (39.0%), risks/complications (19.5%), and the ability to perform specific activities (18.8%). Frequently asked questions had to do with the duration of symptoms, self-management strategies (eg, brace use and self-massage), and the indications for surgery. The most common Web sites provided to address these questions were social media (27.5%), commercial (24.5%), academic (16.5%), and medical practice (16.3%).
Conclusion:
The most frequently asked questions about lateral epicondylitis on Google centered around symptom duration and management, with most information originating from social media and commercial Web sites. Our data can be used to anticipate patient concerns and set expectations regarding the prognosis and management of lateral epicondylitis.
Finney RuttenLJBlakeKDGreenberg-WorisekAJ, et al. Online health information seeking among US adults: measuring progress toward a healthy people 2020 objective. Public Health Rep. 2019;134(6):617-625. doi:10.1177/0033354919874074.
3.
TonsakerTBartlettGTrpkovC. Health information on the Internet: gold mine or minefield?Can Fam Physician. 2014;60(5):407-408.
4.
RaoAJDyCJGoldfarbCA, et al. Patient preferences and utilization of online resources for patients treated in hand surgery practices. Hand (N Y). 2019;14(2):277-283. doi:10.1177/1558944717744340.
5.
EdwardsMDaviesMEdwardsA. What are the external influences on information exchange and shared decision-making in healthcare consultations: a meta-synthesis of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75(1):37-52. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.09.025.
6.
BadarudeenSSabharwalS. Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(10):2572-2580. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y.
7.
VerhaarJA. Anatomical, epidemiological and therapeutic aspects. Int Orthop. 1994;18(5):263-267. doi:10.1007/BF00180221.
8.
CalfeeRPPatelADaSilvaMF, et al. Management of lateral epicondylitis: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(1):19-29. doi:10.5435/00124635-200801000-00004.
9.
KoenigSNadarajahVSmudaMP, et al. Patients’ use and perception of internet-based orthopaedic sports medicine resources. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(9): 2325967118796469. doi:10.1177/2325967118796469.
10.
KanthawalaSVermeeschAGivenB, et al. Answers to health questions: internet search results versus online health community responses. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(4):e5369. doi:10.2196/jmir.5369.
11.
ShenTSDriscollDAIslamW, et al. Modern internet search analytics and total joint arthroplasty: what are patients asking and reading online?J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(4):1224-1231. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2020.10.024.
12.
SudahSYPaganiNRNasraMH, et al. What patients want to know about shoulder arthroplasty: a Google search analysis. Semin Arthroplasty. 2022;32:162-168. doi:10.1053/j.sart.2021.08.005.
KimGMYooSJChoiS, et al. Current trends for treating lateral epicondylitis. Clin Shoulder Elb. 2019;22(4):227-234. doi:10.5397/cise.2019.22.4.227.
16.
MuirheadWRAllenSDDaSilvaMF, et al. Operative treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Curr Opin Orthop. 2001;12(4):348-352. doi:10.1097/00001433-200108000-00016.
17.
HouckDAKraeutlerMJBelkJW, et al. Evaluation of information available on the internet regarding reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow. 2019;11(suppl 2):29-34. doi:10.1177/1758573217713720.
18.
FravalAMing ChongYHolcdorfD, et al. Internet use by orthopaedic outpatients-current trends and practices. Australas Med J. 2012;5(12):633-638. doi:10.4066/AMJ.2012.1530.
19.
SkolaskyRLAlbertTJVaccaroAR, et al. Patient satisfaction in the cervical spine research society outcomes study: relationship to improved clinical outcome. Spine J. 2009;9(3):232-239. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.03.001.
20.
EllisDJMallozziSSMathewsJE, et al. The relationship between preoperative expectations and the short-term postoperative satisfaction and functional outcome in lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2015;5(5):436-452. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1551650.
21.
NeuprezADelcourJPFatemiF, et al. Patients’ expectations impact their satisfaction following total hip or knee arthroplasty. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(12):e0167911. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167911.
22.
DyCJTaylorSAPatelRM, et al. Does the quality, accuracy, and readability of information about lateral epicondylitis on the internet vary with the search term used. Hand (N Y). 2012;7(4):420-425. doi:10.1007/s11552-012-9443-z.
23.
DarazLMorrowASPonceOJ, et al. Can patients trust online health information? A meta-narrative systematic review addressing the quality of health information on the internet. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(9):1884-1891. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05109-0.
24.
CassidyJTBakerJF. Orthopaedic patient information on the World Wide Web: an essential review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(4):325-338. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.01189.
25.
StevensonFAKerrCMurrayE, et al. Information from the Internet and the doctor-patient relationship: the patient perspective: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2007;8(1):1-8. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-8-47.
26.
SilverMP. Patient perspectives on online health information and communication with doctors: a qualitative study of patients 50 years old and over. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(1):e3588. doi:10.2196/jmir.3588.
27.
DehghaniMJohnsonKMGartenJ, et al. TACIT: an open-source text analysis, crawling, and interpretation tool. Behav Res Methods. 2017;49(2):538-547. doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0722-4.
28.
BidmonSTerlutterR. Gender differences in searching for health information on the internet and the virtual patient-physician relationship in Germany: exploratory results on how men and women differ and why. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(6):e4127. doi:10.2196/jmir.4127.
